N 


v 


uc 


OUTLINES 

OF 

THEOLOGY 

Rewritten  and  Enlarged 

BY 

A.  A.  HODGE,  D.D. 

LATE    PROFESSOR    OF    SYSTEMATIC    THEOLOGY 

IN    THE    THEOLOGICAL    SEMINARY 

PRINCETON,   N.  J. 


CHICAGO 

THE  BIBLE  INSTITUTE  COLPORTAGE  ASS'N 

826  NORTH  LA  SALLE  STREET 


Copyright  1878, 
By  Robert  Carter  and  Brothms. 


cambridgb:  st.  johnland 

press  of  itrreotypk  foundbt 

•okn  wilson  and  son.  suffolk  co.,  n.  t. 


PREFACE  TO  FIRST  EDITION. 


In  introducing  this  book  to  the  reader,  I  have  only  a 
single  word  to  say  upon  two  points:  first,  as  to  the  uses 
which  I  regard  this  form  of  exhibiting  theological  truth 
as  being  specially  qualified  to  subserve;  and,  secondly,  as 
to  the  sources  from  which  I  have  drawn  the  materials 
composing  these  "Outlines." 

As  to  the  first  point,  I  have  to  say,  that  the  concep- 
tion and  execution  of  this  work  originated  in  the  expe- 
rience of  the  need  for  some  such  manual  of  theological 
definitions  and  argumentation,  in  the  immediate  work 
of  instructing  the  members  of  my  own  pastoral  charge. 
The  several  chapters  were  in  the  first  instance  prepared 
and  used  in  the  same  form  in  which  they  are  now 
printed,  as  the  basis  of  a  lecture  delivered  otherwise 
extemporaneously  to  my  congregation  every  Sabbath 
night.  In  this  use  of  them,  I  found  these  preparations 
successful  beyond  my  hopes.  The  congregation,  as  a 
whole,  were  induced  to  enter  with  interest  upon  the 
study  even  of  the  most  abstruse  questions.     Having  put 


6  rKEFACE    TO    ORIGINAL    EDITION. 

this  work  thus  to  this  practical  test,  I  now  offer  it  to  my 
brethren  in  the  ministry,  that  they  may  use  it,  if  they 
will,  as  a  repertory  of  digested  material  for  the  doctrinal 
instruction  of  their  people,  either  in  Bible  classes,  or  by 
means  of  a  congregational  lecture.  I  offer  it  also  as  an 
attempt  to  supply  an  acknowledged  public  want,  as  a 
syllabus  of  theological  study  for  the  use  of  theological 
students  generally,  and  for  the  use  of  those  many  labo- 
rious preachers  of  the  gospel  who  can  not  command  the 
time,  or  who  have  not  the  opportunity,  or  other  essential 
means,  to  study  the  more  expensive  and  elaborate  works 
from  which  the  materials  of  this  compend  have  been 
gathered. 

The  questions  have  been  retained  in  form,  not  for 
the  purpose  of  adapting  the  book  in  any  degree  for 
catechetical  instruction,  but  as  the  most  convenient  and 
perspicuous  method  of  presenting  an  "outline  of  the- 
ology" so  condensed.  This  same  necessity  of  conden- 
sation I  would  also  respectfully  plead  as  in  some  degree 
an  excuse  for  some  of  the  instances  of  obscurity  in  defi- 
nition and  meagreness  of  illustration,  which  the  reader 
will  observe. 

In  the  second  place,  as  to  the  sources  from  winch  I 
have  drawn  the  materials  of  this  book,  I  may  for  the 
most  part  refer  the  reader  to  the  several  passages,  where 
the  acknowledgment  is  made  as  the   debt  is  incurred 


PREFACE    TO    ORIGINAL    EDITION.  7 

In  general,  however,  it  is  proper  to  say  that  I  have, 
with  his  permission,  used  the  list  of  questions  given  by 
my  father  to  his  classes  of  forty-five  and  six.  I  have 
added  two  or  three  chapters  which  his  course  did  not 
embrace,  and  have  in  general  adapted  his  questions  to 
my  new  purpose,  by  omissions,  additions,  or  a  different 
distribution.  To  such  a  degree,  however,  have  they 
directed  and  assisted  me,  that  I  feel  a  confidence  in 
offering  the  result  to  the  public  which  otherwise  would 
have  been  unwarrantable.  In  the  frequent  instances  in 
which  I  have  possessed  his  published  articles  upon  the 
subjects  of  the  following  chapters,  the  reader  will  find 
that  I  have  drawn  largely  from  them.  It  is  due  to  my- 
self, however,  to  say,  that  except  in  two  instances,  "  The 
Scriptures  the  only  Rule  of  Faith  and  Judge  of  Contro- 
versies," and  the  "Second  Advent,"  I  have  never  heard 
delivered  nor  read  the  manuscript  of  that  course  of  theo 
logical  lectures  which  he  has  prepared  for  the  use  of  his 
classes  subsequently  to  my  graduation.  In  the  instances 
[  have  above  excepted,  I  have  attempted  little  more,  in 
the  preparation  of  the  respective  chapters  of  this  book 
bearing  those  titles,  than  to  abridge  my  father's  lectures. 
En  every  instance  I  have  endeavored  to  acknowledge  the 
full  extent  of  the  assistance  I  have  derived  from  others, 
in  which  I  have,  I  believe,  uniformly  succeeded,  except 
so  far  as  I  am  now  unable  to  trace  to  their  original 


8  PREFACE    TO    ORIGINAL   EDITION. 

sources  some  of  the  materials  collected  by  me  in  my 
class  manuscripts,  prepared  fourteen  years  ago,  while  a 
student  of  theology.  This  last  reference  relates  to  a 
large  element  in  this  book,  as  I  wrote  copiously,  and 
after  frequent  oral  communication  with  my  father,  both 
in  public  and  private. 

A.  A.  Hodgr 

Fudbricksbukg,  May,  i860. 


PREFACE  TO  REVISED  AND  ENLARGED  EDITION. 


The  Preface  to  the  original  edition  gives  a  perfectly  accu- 
rate and  somewhat  circumstantial  account  of  the  origin  of 
this  work.  Since  its  first  publication  the  evidences  of  the 
fact  that  it  met  a  public  need  have  been  multiplying.  Its 
sale  in  America  and  Great  Britain  has  continued.  It  has 
been  translated  into  Welsh  and  Modern  Greek,  and  used  in 
several  theological  training  schools. 

The  author,  in  the  meantime,  has  been  for  fourteen  years 
engaged  in  the  practical  work  of  a  theological  instructor. 
His  increased  knowledge  and  experience  as  a  teacher  have 
been  embodied  in  this  new  and  enlarged  edition,  which  has 
grown  to  its  present  form  through  several  years  in  connection 
with  his  actual  class  instructions. 

The  new  edition  contains  nearly  fifty  per  cent  more  matter 
than  the  former  one.  Two  chapters  have  been  dropped,  and 
five  new  ones  have  been  added.  Extracts  from  the  principal 
Confessions,  Creeds,  and  classical  theological  writers  of  the 
great  historical  churches  have  been  appended  to  the  discus- 
sions of  the  doctrines  concerning  which  the  Church  is  di- 
vided. Several  chapters  have  been  entirely  rewritten,  and 
many  others  have  been  materially  recast,  and  enlarged.  And 
the  Appendix  contains  a  translation  of  the  Consensus  Tigurinus 
of  Calvin,  and  of  the  Formula  Consensus  Helvetica  of  Heideg- 
ger and  Turretin,  two  Confessions  of  first  class  historical  and 


10      PREFACE    TO   REVISED   AND   ENLARGED   EDITION. 

doctrinal  interest  to  the  student  of  Reformed  theology,  but 
not  easily  accessible. 

The  work  is  again  offered  to  the  Christian  Church,  not  as 
a  complete  treatise  of  Systematic  Theology,  for  the  use  of  the 
proficient,  but  as  a  simple  Text  Book,  adapted  to  the  needs 
of  students  taking  their  first  lessons  in  this  great  science, 
and  to  the  convenience  of  many  earnest  workers  who  wish 
to  refresh  their  memories  by  means  of  a  summary  review  of 
the  ground  gone  over  by  them  in  their  earlier  studies. 

Princeton,  N.  J.,  August  6th,  1878. 


CONTENTS. 


'  *   CHAPTER  I. 

CHRISTIAN   THEOLOGY;    ITS    SEVERAL    BRANCHES;    AND    THEIR    RELA- 
TION   TO    OTHER    DEPARTMENTS    OP    HUMAN    KNOWLEDGE.       .       .       15 


CHAPTER   II. 

THE    ORIGIN    OF   THE    IDEA   OP   GOD    AND    PROOF   OF    HIS   EXISTENCE.       29 

CHAPTER  III. 

THE  SOURCES  OF  THEOLOGY 53 

CHAPTER   IV. 

THE    INSPIRATION   OF   THE    BIBLE 65 

CHAPTER  V. 

THE    SCRIPTURES    OF    THE     OLD    AND    NEW    TESTAMENTS    THE    ONLY 

RULE    OF    FAITH    AND    JUDGE    OF    CONTROVERSIES 82 

CHAPTER  VI. 

A    COMPARISON    OF    SYSTEMS 94 

CHAPTER  VII. 

CREEDS   AND   CONFESSIONS 112 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE    ATTRIBUTES    OF   GOD 129 


12  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  IX. 

TIIE  HOLY  TRINITY,  INCLUDING  THE  DIVINITY  OP  CHRIST,  THE  ETER- 
NAL GENERATION  OF  THE  SON,  THE  PERSONALITY,  DIVINITY, 
AND  ETERNAL  PROCESSION  OP  THE  HOLY  GHOST,  AND  THE 
SEVERAL  PROPERTIES  AND  MUTUAL  RELATIONS  OP  THE  PER- 
SONS   OF    THE    GODHEAD.     ..." 164 

CHAPTER   X. 

fHE   DECREES   OF   GOD    IN   GENERAL. 20C 

CHAPTER  XL 

PREDESTINATION 214 

CHAPTER   XII. 

THE    CREATION    OF    THE    WORLD 237 

CHAPTER   XIII. 

ANGELS 249 

CHAPTER   XIV. 

PROVIDENCE 258 

CHAPTER  XV. 

THE  MORAL  CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  SOUL,  WILL,  CONSCIENCE,  LIB- 
ERTY,   ETC 280 

CHAPTER   XVI. 

CREATION    AND    ORIGINAL    STATE    OF   MAN 296 

CHAPTER  XVII. 

THE     COVENANT     OF     WORKS 309 

CHAPTER   XVIII. 

TFIE    NATURE    OF    SIN    AND    THE    SIN    OF    ADAM 315 

CHAPTER   XIX. 

ORIGINAL   SIN. — {Peccatum  HabituaU.) 325 


CONTENTS.  13 

CHAPTER   XX. 

INABILITY 338 

CHAPTER   XXL 

THE    IMPUTATION   OP   ADAm's   FIRST   SIN   TO   HIS   POSTERITY.     .      .      .    348 

CHAPTER   XXII. 

THE   COVENANT   OP   GRACE 367 

CHAPTER  XXIII. 

THE    PERSON    OP    CHRIST 378 

CHAPTER  XXIV. 

THE    MEDIATORIAL    OFFICE   OF   CHRIST 391 

CHAPTER  XXV. 

THE   ATONEMENT:  ITS  NATURE,  NECESSITY,  PERFECTION,  AND  EXTENT.    401 

CHAPTER  XXVI. 

THE    INTERCESSION     OP     CHRIST 426 

CHAPTER  XXVII. 

THE     MEDIATORIAL     KINGSHIP    OF    CHRIST 428 

CHAPTER   XXVIII. 

EFFECTUAL   CALLING 445 

CHAPTER   XXIX. 

REGENERATION , 456 

CHAPTER   XXX. 

FAITH 465 

CHAPTER   XXXI. 

UNION   OF   BELIEVERS    WITH   CHRIST. 482 


14  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER   XXXII. 

REPENTANCE,  AND  THE  ROMISH  DOCTRINE  OF  PENANCE 487 

CHAPTER  XXXI I L 

JUSTIFICATION 49G 

CHAPTER  XXXIV. 

ADOPTION,  AND  THE  ORDER  OF  GRACE  IN  THE  APPLICATION  OF  RE- 
DEMPTION, IN  THE  SEVERAL  PARTS  OF  JUSTIFICATION,  REGEN- 
ERATION,  AND    SANCTIFICATION 515 

CHAPTER  XXXV. 

SANCTIFICATION 520 

CHAPTER   XXXVI. 

PERSEVERANCE    OF    THE    SAINTS 542 

CHAPTER   XXXVII. 

DEATH,  AND  THE  STATE  OF  THE  SOUL  AFTER  DEATH 548 

CHAPTER   XXXVIII. 

THE    RESURRECTION 559 

CHAPTER  XXXIX. 

THE    SECOND   ADVENT    AND    GENERAL    JUDGMENT. 56G 

CHAPTER   XL. 

HEAVEN   AND   HELL. 577 

CHAPTER   XLT. 

THE    BACRAMENTS 588 

CHAPTER   XLII. 

BAPTISM G03 

CHAFrER   XLIII. 

the    lord's    supper, 631 


OUTLINES  OF  THEOLOGY. 


CHAPTER    I. 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY  ;  ITS  SEVERAL  BRANCHES ;  AND  THEIR  RE- 
LATION TO  OTHER  DEPARTMENTS  OF  HUMAN  KNOWLEDGE. 


1.  What  is  Religion?  And  ivhat  TJwology  in  its  Christian 
sense  ? 

Religion,  in  its  most  general  sense,  is  the  sum  of  the  rela- 
tions which  man  sustains  to  God,  and  comprises  the  truths,  the 
experiences,  actions,  and  institutions  which  correspond  to,  or 
grow  out  of  those  relations. 

Theology,  in  its  most  general  sense,  is  the  science  of 
religion. 

The  Christian  religion  is  that  body  of  truths,  experiences, 
actions,  and  institutions  which  are  determined  by  the  revelation 
supernaturally  presented  in  the  Christian  Scriptures.  Chris- 
tian Theology  is  the  scientific  determination,  interpretation, 
and  defence  of  those  Scriptures,  together  with  the  history  of 
the  manner  in  Avhich  the  truths  it  reveals  have  been  under- 
stood, and  the  duties  they  impose  have  been  performed,  by  all 
Christians  in  all  ages. 

2.  What  is  Theological  Encyclopaedia  ?  and  what  Theological 
Methodology  ? 

Theological  Encyclopaedia,  from  the  Greek  lyxvxlonaiSEia 
(the  whole  circle  of  general  education),  presents  to  the  student 
the  entire  circle  of  the  special  sciences  devoted  to  the  discov- 
ery, elucidation,  and  defence  of  the  contents  of  the  supernatural 
revelation  contained  in  the  Christian  Scriptures,  and  aims  to 
present  these  sciences  in  those  organic  relations  which  are 
determined  by  their  actual  genesis  and  inmost  nature. 

Theological  Methodology  is  the  science  of  theological 
method.  As  each  department  of  human  inquiry  demands  a 
mode  of  treatment  peculiar  to  itself;  and  as  even  each  subdi- 
vision of  each  general  department  demands  its  own  special 


16  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

raodificcation8  of  treatment,  so  theological  methodology  provides 
for  the  scientific  determination  of  the  true  method,  general 
and  special,  of  pursuing  the  theological  sciences.  And  this  in- 
cludes two  distinct  categories :  (a)  The  methods  proper  to  the 
original  investigation  and  construction  of  the  several  sciences, 
and  (b)  the  methods  proper  to  elementary  instruction  in  the 
same. 

All  this  should  be  accompanied  with  critical  and  historical 
information,  and  direction  as  to  the  use  of  the  vast  literature 
with  which  these  sciences  are  illustrated. 

3.  How  far  is  the  scientific  arrangement  of  all  the  theological 
sciences  possible  ?    And  on  what  account  is  the  attempt  desirable  ? 

Such  an  arrangement  can  approach  perfection  only  in  pro- 
portion as  these  sciences  themselves  approach  their  final  and 
absolute  form.  At  present  every  such  attempt  must  be  only 
more  or  less  an  approximation  to  an  ideal  unattainable  in  the 
present  state  of  knowledge  in  this  life.  Every  separate  attempt 
also  must  depend  for  its  comparative  success  upon  the  compar- 
ative justness  of  the  general  theological  principles  upon  which 
it  is  based.  It  is  evident  that  those  who  make  Reason,  and 
those  who  make  the  inspired  Church,  and  those  who  make  the 
inspired  Scriptures  the  source  and  standard  of  all  divine  knowl- 
edge, must  severally  configure  the  theological  sciences  to  the 
different  foundations  on  which  they  are  made  to  stand. 

The  point  of  view  adopted  in  this  book  is  the  evangelical 
and  specifically  the  Calvinistic  or  Augustinian  one,  assuming 
the  following  fundamental  principles:  1st.  The  inspired  Script- 
ures are  the  sole,  and  an  infallible  standard  of  all  religious 
knowledge.  2d.  Christ  and  his  work  is  the  centre  around 
which  all  Christian  theology  is  brought  into  order.  3d.  The 
salvation  brought  to  light  in  the  gospel  is  supernatural  and  of 
Free  Grace.  4th.  All  religious  knowledge  has  a  practical  end. 
The  theological  sciences,  instead  of  being  absolute  ends  in  them- 
selves, find  their  noblest  purpose  and  effect  in  the  advancement 
of  personal  holiness,  the  more  efficient  service  of  our  fellow 
men,  and  the  greater  glory  of  God. 

The  advantages  of  such  a  grouping  of  the  theological  sci- 
ences are  obvious,  and  great.  The  relations  of  all  truths  are 
determined  by  their  nature,  whence  it  follows  that  their  na- 
ture is  revealed  by  an  exhibition  of  their  relations.  Such  an 
exhibition  will  also  tend  to  widen  the  mental  horizon  of  the 
student,  to  incite  him  to  breadth  of  culture,  and  prevent  him 
from  unduly  exalting  or  exclusively  cultivating  any  one  special 
branch,  and  thus  from  perverting  it  by  regarding  it  out  of  its 
natural  limitations  and  dependencies. 


MAIN  DIVISIONS.  17 

4.  What  are  the  fundamental  questions  which  aU  theological 
science  proposes  to  answer,  and  which  therefore  determine  the 
arrangement  of  the  several  departments  of  that  general  science? 

1st.  Is  there  a  God  ?  2d.  Has  God  spoken  ?  3d.  What  has 
God  said?  4th.  How  have  men  in  time  past  understood  his 
word  and  practically,  in  their  persons  and  institutions,  realized 
his  intentions? 

5.  Wiiat  position  in  an  encyclopaedia  of  theological  sciences  must 
be  given  to  other  branches  of  human  knowledge  ? 

It  is  evident  that  as  the  Supernatural  Kevelation  God  has 
been  pleased  to  give  has  come  to  us  in  an  historical  form,  that 
history,  and  that  of  the  Christian  Church,  is  inseparably  con- 
nected with  all  human  history  more  or  less  directly.  Further, 
it  is  evident  that  as  all  truth  is  one,  all  revealed  truths  and 
duties  are  inseparably  connected  with  all  departments  of  human 
knowledge,  and  with  all  the  institutions  of  human  society.  It 
hence  follows  that  theological  science  can  at  no  point  be  sepa- 
rated from  general  science,  that  some  knowledge  of  every  de- 
partment ol  human  knowledge  must  always  be  comprehended 
in  every  system-  of  Theological  Encyclopsedia  as  auxiliary  to 
the  Theological  sciences  themselves.  Some  of  these  auxiliary 
sciences  sustain  special  relations  to  certain  of  the  theological 
sciences,  and  are  very  remotely  related  to  others.  It  is,  how- 
ever, convenient  to  give  them  a  position  by  themselves,  as  in 
general  constituting  a  discipline  preparatory  and  auxiliary  to 
the  science  of  theology  as  a  whole. 

6.  State  the  main  divisions  of  the  proposed  arrangement  of  tJie 
theological  sciences. 

I.  Sciences  Auxiliary  to  the  study  of  theology. 

II.  Apologetics — embracing  the  answers  to  the  two  ques- 
tions— Is  there  a  God  ?  and  Has  God  spoken  ? 

III.  Exegetical  Theology — embracing  the  critical  determina- 
tion of  the  ipsissima  verba  of  the  Divine  Kevelation,  and  the 
Interpretation  their  meaning. 

IV.  Systematic  Theology — embracing  the  development  into 
an  all-embracing  and  self-consistent  system  of  the  contents  of 
that  Revelation,  and  its  subsequent  elucidation  and  defence. 

V.  Practical  Theology — embracing  the  principles  and  laws 
revealed  in  Scripture  for  the  guidance  of  Christians  (a)  in  the 
promulgation  of  this  divine  revelation  thus  ascertained  and 
interpreted,  and  thus  (b)  in  bringing  all  men  into  practical 
obedience  to  the  duties  it  imposes  and  (c)  into  the  fruition  of 
the  blessings  it  confers. 

a 


18  THEOLOGICAL   ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

VI.  Historical  Theology — embracing  the  history  of  the  actual 
development  during  all  past  ages  and  among  all  people  of  the 
theoretical  and  practical  elements  of  that  revelation  (1)  in  the 
faith  and  (2)  in  the  life  of  the  Church. 

7.  State  the  chief  departments  of  human  knowledge  auxiliary 
to  study  of  Theology. 

1st.  As  underlying  and  conditioning  all  knowledge,  we  have 
Universal  History,  and  as  auxiliary  to  theological  science  espe- 
cially the  Histories  of  Egypt,  Babylonia,  Assyria,  Greece,  Rome 
and  of  Mediaeval  and  Modern  Europe. 

2d.  Archaeology  in  its  most  comprehensive  sense,  including 
the  interpretation  of  inscriptions,  monuments,  coins,  and  re- 
mains of  art,  and  the  illustrations  gathered  thence  and  from  all 
other  available  sources,  of  the  geographical  distribution  and 
physical  conditions,  and  of  the  political,  religious,  and  social 
institutions  and  customs  of  all  peoples,  of  all  ages. 

3d.  Ethnology — the  science  of  the  divisions  of  the  human 
family  into  races  and  nations,  and  of  their  dispersion  over  the 
world  —  which  traces  their  origin  and  affiliations  and  their 
varieties  of  physical,  intellectual,  moral,  and  religious  character, 
and  the  sources  and  modifying  conditions  of  these  variations. 

4th.  Comparative  Philology,  the  science  which  starting  from 
the  natural  groups  of  human  languages,  traces  the  relations 
and  origins  of  languages  and  dialects,  and  transcending  the 
first  dawn  of  human  history,  traces  the  unity  of  races  now 
separated,  and  the  elements  of  long  extinct  civilizations,  and 
the  facts  of  historic  changes  otherwise  left  without  record. 

5th.  The  Science  of  Comparative  Religion,  the  critical  study 
and  comparison  of  the  history,  beliefs,  spirit,  principles,  institu- 
tions, and  practical  character  of  all  the  Ethnic  religions,  tracing 
the  light  they  throw  upon  (a)  human  nature  and  history,  (b) 
the  moral  government  of  God,  and  (c)  the  supernatural  revela- 
tion recorded  in  Scripture. 

6th.  Philosophy,  the  ground  and  mistress  of  all  the  merely 
human  sciences.  This  will  include  the  history  of  the  origin 
and  development  of  all  the  schools  of  philosophy,  ancient, 
mediaeval,  and  modern — a  critical  study  and  comparison  of 
their  principles,  methods,  and  doctrines,  and  the  range  and 
character  of  their  respective  influence  upon  all  other  sciences 
and  institutions,  especially  upon  those  which  are  political  and 
religious,  and  more  especially  upon  those  which  are  definitely 
Christian. 

7th.  Psychology,  or  that  department  of  experimental  science 
which  unfolds  the  laws  of  action  of  the  human  mind  under 
normal  conditions,  as  exhibited  (a)  in  the  phenomena  of  indi- 


APOLOGETICS.  19 

vidual  consciousness  and  action,  and  (b)  in  the  phenomena  of 
social  and  political  life. 

8th.  ^Esthetics,  or  the  science  of  the  laws  of  the  Beautiful  in 
all  its  forms  of  Music,  Rhetoric,  Architecture,  Painting,  etc., 
and  the  principles  and  history  of  every  department  of  art. 

9th.  The  Physical  Sciences,  their  methods,  general  and  spe- 
cial; their  history,  genesis,  development,  and  present  tendencies; 
their  relation  to  Philosophy,  especially  to  Theism  and  natural 
religion,  to  civilization,  to  the  Scriptural  records  historically  and 
doctrinally. 

10th.  Statistics,  or  that  department  of  investigation  which 
aims  to  present  us  witli  a  full  knowledge  of  the  present  state 
of  the  human  family  in  the  world,  in  respect  to  every  meas- 
urable variety  of  condition — as  to  numbers  and  state,  physical, 
intellectual,  religious,  social,  and  political,  of  civilization,  com- 
merce, literature,  science,  art,  etc.,  etc. ;  from  which  elements 
the  immature  forms  of  social  science  and  political  economy  are 
being  gradually  developed. 

8.  Wliat  particulars  are  embraced  under  the  head  of  Apolo 
getics  ? 

This  department  falls  under  two  heads:  (1.)  Is  there  a  God 
(2.)  Has  He  spoken;  and  includes — 

1st.  The  proof  of  the  being  of  God,  that  is  of  an  extra 
mundane  person  transcendent  yet  immanent,  creating,  pre 
serving,  and  governing  all  things  according  to  his  eternal  plan 
This  will  involve  the  discussion  and  refutation  of  all  Antithe- 
istic  systems,  as  Atheism,  Pantheism,  Naturalistic  Deism,  Ma- 
terialism, etc. 

2d.  The  Development  of  Natural  Theology,  embracing  the  re- 
lation of  God  to  intelligent  and  responsible  agents  as  Moral 
Governor,  and  the  indications  of  his  will  and  purpose,  and  con- 
sequently of  the  duties  and  destinies  of  mankind,  as  far  as  these 
can  be  traced  by  the  light  of  Nature — 

3d.  The  evidences  of  Christianity,  including — 

(1.)  The  discussion  of  the  proper  use  of  reason  in  religious 
questions. 

(2.)  The  demonstration  of  the  a  priori  possibility  of  a  super- 
natural revelation. 

(3.)  The  necessity  for  and  the  probability  of  such  a  revelation, 
the  character  of  God  and  the  condition  of  man  as  revealed  by 
the  light  of  nature,  being  considered. 

(4.)  The  positive  proof  of  the  actual  fact  that  such  a  reve- 
lation has  been  given  (a)  through  the  Old  Testament  prophets, 
(b)  through  the  New  Testament  prophets,  and  (c)  above  all  in 
the  person  and  work  of  Christ.     This  will  involve,  of  course, 


20  THEOLOGICAL   ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

a  critical  discussion  of  all  the  evidence  bearing  on  this  sub- 
ject, external  and  internal,  historical,  rational,  moral,  and  spirit- 
ual, natural  and  supernatural,  theoretical  and  practical,  and  a 
refutation  of  all  the  criticism,  historical  and  rational,  which  has 
been  brought  to  bear  against  the  fact  of  revelation  or  the  in- 
tegrity of  the  record.  Much  that  is  here  adduced  will  of  course 
necessarily  be  also  comprehended  under  the  heads  of  Systematic 
and  of  Exegetical  Theology. 

9.  What  is  embraced  under  Exegetical  Theology  ? 

If  the  facts  (1)  That  there  is  a  God,  and  (2)  that  he  has 
spoken,  be  established,  it  remains  to  answer  the  question, 
'•What  has  God  said?"  Exegetical  Theology  is  the  general 
title  of  that  department  of  theological  science  which  aims  at 
the  Interpretation  of  the  Scriptures  as  the  word  of  God,  recorded 
in  human  language,  and  transmitted  to  us  through  human 
channels;  and  in  order  to  this,  Interpretation  aims  to  gather 
and  organize  all  that  knowledge  which  is  necessarily  intro- 
ductory thereto.  This  includes  the  answer  to  two  main  ques- 
tions: (1)  What  books  form  the  canon,  and  what  were  the  exact 
words  of  which  the  original  autographs  of  the  writers  of  these 
several  books  consisted,  and  (2)  What  do  those  divine  words, 
so  ascertained,  mean. 

The  answers  to  all  questions  preliminary  to  actual  Interpre- 
tation, come  under  the  head  of  Introduction,  and  this  is  divided 

(1)  into  General  Introduction,  presenting  all  that  information, 
preliminary  to  interpretation,  which  stands  related  in  common 
to  the  Bible  as  a  whole,  or  to  each  Testament  as  a  whole,  and 

(2)  into  Special  Introduction,  which  includes  all  necessary  prepa- 
ration for  the  interpretation  of  each  book  of  the  Bible  in  detail. 

A.  General  Introduction  includes — 

1st.  The  Higher  Criticism  or  the  canvass  of  the  extant 
evidences  of  all  kinds  establishing  the  authenticity  and  genuine- 
ness of  each  book  in  the  sacred  canon. 

2d.  The  Criticism  of  the  Text,  which,  from  a  comparison  of 
the  best  ancient  manuscripts  and  versions,  from  internal  evi- 
dence, and  by  means  of  a  critical  history  of  the  text  from  its 
first  appearance  to  the  present,  seeks  to  determine  the  ipsissima 
verba  of  the  original  autographs  of  the  inspired  writers. 

3d.  Biblical  Philology,  which  answers  the  questions:  Why 
were  different  languages  used  in  the  record ?  and  why  Hebrew 
and  Greek?  What  are  the  special  characteristics  of  the  dia- 
lects of  those  languages  actually  used,  and  their  relation  to  tho 
families  of  language  to  which  they  belong?  And  what  were 
the  special  characteristics  of  dialect,  style,  etc.,  of  the  sacred 
writers  individually. 


EXEGETICAL    THEOLOGY.  21 

4th.  Biblical  Archaeology,  including  the  physical  and  political 
geography  of  Bible  lands  during  the  course  of  Bible  history, 
and  determining  the  physical,  ethnological,  social,  political 
and  religious  conditions  of  the  people  among  whom  the  Script- 
ures originated,  together  with  an  account  of  their  customs  and 
institutions,  and  of  the  relation  of  these  to  those  of  their  ances- 
tors and  of  their  contemporaries. 

5th.  Hermeneutics,  or  the  scientific  determination  of  the  prin- 
ciples and  rules  of  Biblical  Interpretation,  including  (1)  the 
logical  and  grammatical  and  rhetorical  principles  determining 
the  interpretation  of  human  language  in  general,  (2)  the  mod- 
ification of  these  principles  appropriate  to  the  interpretation  of 
the  specific  forms  of  human  discourse,  e.  g.,  history,  poetiy, 
prophecy,  parable,  symbol,  etc.,  and  (3)  those  further  modifica- 
tions of  these  principles  appropriate  to  the  interpretation  of 
writings  supernaturally  inspired. 

6th.  Apologetics  having  established  the  fact  that  the  Chris- 
tian Scriptures  are  the  vehicle  of  a  supernatural  revelation,  we 
must  now  discuss  and  determine  the  nature  and  extent  of  Bib- 
lical Inspiration  as  far  as  this  is  determined  by  the  claims  and 
the  phenomena  of  the  Scriptures  themselves. 

7th.  The  History  of  Interpretation,  including  the  history 
of  ancient  and  modern  versions  and  schools  of  interpreta- 
tion, illustrated  by  a  critical  comparison  of  the  most  eminent 
commentaries. 

B.  Special  Introduction  treats  of  each  book  of  the  Bible  by 
itself,  and  furnishes  all  that  knowledge  concerning  its  dialect, 
authorship,  occasion,  design,  and  reception  that  is  necessary  for 
its  accurate  interpretation. 

G.  Exegesis  proper  is  the  actual  application  of  all  the  knowl- 
edge gathered,  and  of  all  the  rules  developed,  in  the  preceding 
departments  of  Introduction  to  the  Interpretation  of  the  sacred 
text,  as  it  stands  in  its  original  connections  of  Testaments, 
books,  paragraphs,  etc. 

Following  the  laws  of  grammar,  the  usus  loquendi  of  words, 
the  analogy  of  Scripture,  and  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
Exegesis  seeks  to  determine  the  mind  of  the  Spirit  as  expressed 
in  the  inspired  sentences  as  they  stand  in  their  order. 

There  are  several  special  departments  classed  under  the 
general  head  of  Exegetical  Theology,  which  involve  in  some 
degree  that  arrangement  and  combination  of  Scripture  testi- 
monies under  topics  or  subjects,  which  is  the  distinctive  char 
acteristic  of  Systematic  Theology. 

These  are — 

1st.  Typology,  which  embraces  a  scientific  determination  of 
the  laws  of  Biblical  symbols  and  types,  and  their  interpretation, 


22  THEOLOGICAL   ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

especially  those  of  the  Mosaic  ritual  as  related  to  the  person 
and  work  of  Christ. 

2d.  Old  Testament  Christology,  the  critical  exposition  of  the 
Messianic  idea  as  it  is  developed  in  the  Old  Testament. 

3d.  Biblical  Theology,  which  traces  the  gradual  evolution  oi 
the  several  elements  oi*  revealed  truth  from  their  first  sugges- 
tion through  every  successive  stage  to  their  fullest  manifesta- 
tion in  the  sacred  text,  and  which  exhibits  the  peculiar  forme 
and  connections  in  which  these  several  truths  are  presented  by 
each  inspired  writer. 

4th.  The  Development  of  the  principles  of  Prophetical  In- 
terpretation and  their  application  to  the  construction  of  an 
outline  of  the  Prophesies  of  both  Testaments. — "  Notes  on  New 
Testament  Literature,"  by  Dr.  .J.  A.  Alexander. 

10.  What  is  embraced  under  the  head  of  Systematic  Theology. 

As  the  name  imports,  Systematic  Theology  has  for  its  object 
the  gathering  all  that  the  Scriptures  teach  as  to  what  we  are 
to  believe  and  to  do,  and  the  presenting  all  the  elements  of  this 
teaching  in  a  symmetrical  system.  The  human  mind  must 
seek  unity  in  all  its  knowledge.  God's  truth  is  one,  and  all 
the  contents  of  all  revelations  natural  and  supernatural  must 
constitute  one  self-contained  system,  each  part  organically  re- 
lated to  every  other. 

The  method  of  construction  is  inductive.  It  rests  upon  the 
results  of  Exegesis  for  its  foundation.  Passages  of  Scripture 
ascertained  and  interpreted  are  its  data.  These  when  rightly 
interpreted  reveal  their  own  relations  and  place  in  the  system 
of  which  the  Person  and  work  of  Christ  is  the  centre.  And  as 
the  contents  of  revelation  stand  intimately  related  to  all  the 
other  departments  of  human  knowledge,  the  work  of  Systematic 
Theology  necessarily  involves  the  demonstration  and  illustra- 
tion of  the  harmony  of  all  revealed  truth  with  all  valid  science, 
material  and  psychological,  with  all  true  speculative  philosophy 
and  with  all  true  moral  philosophy  and  practical  philanthropy 

It  includes — (1.)  The  construction  of  all  the  contents  of 
revelation  into  a  complete  system  of  faith  and  duties.  (2.)  The 
history  of  this  process  as  it  has  prevailed  in  the  Church  during 
the  past.     (3.)  Polemics. 

I.  The  construction  of  all  the  contents  of  revelation  into  a 
complete  system.  This  includes  the  scientific  treatment  (a) 
of  all  the  matters  of  faith  revealed,  and  (&)  of  all  the  duties 
enjoined. 

In  the  arrangement  of  topics  the  great  majority  of  theolo- 
gians have  followed  what  Dr.  Chalmers  calls  the  synthetical 
method.     Starting  with  the  idea  and  nature  of  God  revealed  in 


SYSTEMATIC    THEOLOGY.  23 

the  Scriptures,  they  trace  his  eternal  purposes  and  temporal 
acts  in  creation,  providence,  and  redemption  to  the  final  con- 
summation. The  Doctor  himself  prefers  what  he  calls  the 
analytic  method,  and  starts  with  the  facts  of  experience  and 
the  light  of  nature,  and  man's  present  morally  diseased  con- 
dition, leads  upward  to  redemption  and  to  the  character  of  God 
as  revealed  therein. 

Following  the  former  of  these  methods  all  the  elements  of 
the  system  are  usually  grouped  under  the  following  heads: 

1st.  Theology  proper:  including  the  existence,  attributes, 
triune  personality  of  God,  together  with  his  eternal  purposes, 
and  temporal  acts  of  creation  and  providence. 

2d.  Anthropology:  (doctrine  of  man)  including  the  creation 
and  nature  of  man,  his  original  state,  fall,  and  consequent  moral 
ruin.  This  embraces  the  Biblical  Psychology,  and  the  Script- 
ural doctrine  of  sin,  its  nature,  origin,  and  mode  of  propagation. 

3d.  Soteriology:  (doctrine  of  salvation)  which  includes  the 
plan,  execution,  and  application  and  glorious  effects  of  human 
salvation.  This  embraces  Christology  (the  doctrine  of  Christ), 
the  incarnation,  the  constitution  of  Christ's  person,  his  life, 
death,  and  resurrection,  together  with  the  office-work  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  the  means  of  grace,  the  word  and  sacraments. 

4th.  Christian  Ethics:  embracing  the  principles,  rules,  mo- 
tives, and  aids  of  human  duty  revealed  in  the  Bible  as  deter- 
mined (a)  by  his  natural  relations  as  a  man  with  his  fellows, 
and  (b)  his  supernatural  relations  as  a  redeemed  man. 

5th.  Eschatology  (science  of  last  things)  comprehending 
death,  the  intermediate  state  of  the  soul,  the  second  advent,  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead,  the  general  judgment,  heaven  and  hell. 

6th.  Ecclesiology  (science  of  the  Church);  including  the 
scientific  determination  of  all  that  the  Scriptures  teach  as  to 
the  Church  visible  and  invisible,  in  its  temporal  and  in  its 
eternal  state;  including  the  Idea  of  the  Church — its  true  defi- 
nition— its  constitution  and  organization,  its  officers  and  their 
functions.  A  comparison  and  criticism  of  all  the  modifications 
of  ecclesiastical  organization  that  have  ever  existed,  together 
with  their  genesis,  history,  and  practical  effects. 

II.  Doctrine-History,  which  embraces  the  history  of  each 
of  these  great  doctrines  traced  in  its  first  appearance  and  sub- 
sequent development,  through  the  controversies  it  excited  and 
the  Confessions  in  which  it  is  defined. 

III.  Polemics,  or  Controversial  Theology,  including  the  de- 
fence of  the  true  system  of  doctrine  as  a  whole  and  of  each 
constituent  element  of  it  in  detail  against  the  perversions  of 
heretical  parties  within  the  pale  of  the  general  Church.  Thia 
embraces — (1.)  The  general  principles  and  true  method  of  relig- 


24  THEOLOGICAL   ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

ions  controversies.  (2.)  The  definition  of  the  true  Status  Qua's- 
Horn's  in  each  controversy,  and  an  exposition  of  the  sources  of 
evidence  and  of  the  methods,  defensive  and  offensive,  by  which 
the  truth  is  to  be  vindicated.     (3.)  The  history  of  controversies. 

11.  What  is  embraced  under  tlve  head  of  Practical  Theology? 

Practical  Theology  is  both  a  science  and  an  art.  As  an  art 
it  has  for  its  purpose  the  effective  publication  of  the  contents 
of  revelation  among  all  men,  and  the  perpetuation,  extension, 
and  edification  of  the  earthly  kingdom  of  God.  As  a  science 
it  has  for  its  province  the  revealed  principles  and  laws  of  the 
art  above  defined.  Hence  as  Systematic  Theology  roots  itself 
in  a  thorough  Exegesis  at  once  scientific  and  spiritual,  so  does 
Practical  Theology  root  itself  in  the  great  principles  developed 
by  Systematic  Theology,  the  department  of  Ecclesiology  being 
common  ground  to  both  departments:  the  product  of  the  one, 
and  the  foundation  of  the  other. 

It  includes  the  following  main  divisions — 

1st.  The  discussion  of  the  Idea  and  Design  of  the  Church, 
and  of  its  divinely  revealed  attributes. 

2d.  The  determination  of  the  divinely  appointed  constitu- 
tion of  the  Church,  and  methods  of  administration,  with  the 
discussion  and  refutation  of  all  the  rival  forms  of  Church  organ- 
ization that  have  prevailed,  their  history,  and  that  of  the  con- 
troversies which  they  have  occasioned. 

3d.  The  discussion  of  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  discre- 
tion Christ  has  allowed  his  followers  in  adjusting  the  methods 
of  ecclesiastical  organization  and  administration  to  changing 
social  and  historical  conditions. 

4th.  Church  membership,  its  conditions,  and  the  relation  to 
Christ  involved,  together  with  the  duties  and  privileges  abso- 
lute and  relative  of  the  several  classes  of  members.  The  rela- 
tion of  baptized  children  to  the  Church,  and  the  relative  duties 
of  Parents  and  of  the  Church  in  relation  to  them. 

5th.  The  Officers  of  the  Church — extraordinary  and  tempo- 
rary ;  ordinary  and  perpetual. 

(1.)  Their  call  and  ordination;  their  relations  to  Christ  and 
to  the  Church. 

(2.)  Their  functions — 

A.  As  Teachers — including — 

(a.)  Catechetics,  its  necessity,  principles,  and  history. 

(6.1  Sunday-schools.  The  duties  of  parents  and  of  the 
Churcli  in  respect  to  the  religious  education  of  children. 

(c.)  Sacred  Rhetoric.     Homiletics  and  pulpit  elocution. 

(d.)  Christian  literature.  The  newspaper,  and  periodicals 
and  permanent  books. 


PRACTICAL    THEOLOGY.  25 

B.  As  Leaders  of  Worship,  including — 

(a.)  Liturgies,  their  uses,  abuses,  and  history. 

Cb.)  Free  forms  of  prayer. 

(c.)  Psalmody,  inspired  and  uninspired,  its  uses  and  history. 

(d.)  Sacred  Music,  vocal  and  instrumental  uses  and  history. 

C.  As  Rulers — 

(a.)  The  office,  qualification,  duties  and  Scriptural  Warrant 
of  Ruling  Elders — 

(6.)  The  office,  qualification,  duties,  mode  of  election,  and 
ordination,  and  Scriptural  Warrant  of  the  New -Testament 
Bishop  or  Pastor. 

(c.)  The  Session,  its  constitution  and  functions.  The  the- 
ory and  practical  rules  and  methods  of  Church  discipline. 

(d.)  The  Presbytery  and  its  constitution  and  functions. 
The  theory  and  practical  rules  and  precedents  regulating  the 
action  of  Church  courts,  in  the  exercise  of  the  constitutional 
right  of  Review  and  Control  in  the  issue  and  conduct  of  trials, 
complaints,  appeals,  etc.,  etc. 

(e.)  The  Synod  and  General  Assembly  and  their  constitu- 
tion and  functions.  The  Principles  and  policy  of  Committees, 
Commissioners,  Boards,  etc.,  etc. 

This  leads  to  the  functions  of  the  Church  as  a  whole,  and 
the  warrant  for  and  the  uses  and  abuses  of  Denominational  dis- 
tinctions, and  the  relations  of  the  different  Denominations  to 
one  another. 

1st.  Church  Statistics,  including  our  own  Church,  other 
Churches,  and  the  world. 

2d.  Christian,  social,  and  ecclesiastical  economics,  including 
the  duties  of  Christian  stewardship,  personal  consecration,  and 
systematic  benevolence.  The  relation  of  the  Church  to  the 
poor  and  to  criminals,  the  administration  of  orphan  asylums, 
hospitals,  prisons,  etc.  The  relation  of  the  Church  to  volun- 
tary societies,  Young  Men's  Christian  Associations,  etc.,  etc. 

3d.  The  education  of  the  ministry,  the  policy,  constitution 
and  administration  of  theological  seminaries. 

4th.  Domestic  Missions,  including  aggressive  evangeliza- 
tion, support  of  the  ministry  among  the  poor,  Church  exten- 
sion and  Church  erection. 

5th.  The  relation  of  the  Church  to  the  state,  and  the  true 
relation  of  the  state  to  religion,  and  the  actual  condition  of  the 
common  and  statute  law  with  relation  to  Church  property,  and 
the  action  of  Church  Courts  in  the  exercise  of  discipline,  etc. 
The  obligations  of  Christian  citizenship.  The  relation  of  the 
Church  to  civilization,  to  moral  reforms,  to  the  arts,  sciences, 
social  refinements,  etc.,  etc. 

6th.  Foreign  Missions  in  all  their  departments. 


26  THEOLOGICAL   ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

See  "  Lectures  on  Theological  Encyclopaedia  and  Method- 
ology," by  Rev.  John  M'Clintock,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  edited  by  J.  T. 
Short,  B.D. ;  and  "  Bibliotheca  Sacra,"  Vol.  1,  1844;  "Theolog- 
ical Encyclopaedia  and  Methodology,"  from  unpublished  lecture 
of  Prof.  Tholuck,  by  Prof.  E.  A.  Park. 

12.  What  is  embraced  under  the  head  of  Historical  Theology? 

According  to  the  logical  evolution  of  the  whole  contents 
of  the  theological  sciences,  the  Interpretation  of  the  letter  of 
Scripture,  and  the  construction  of  the  entire  System  of  related 
truths  and  duties  revealed  therein,  must  precede  the  History 
of  the  actual  development  of  that  revelation  in  the  life  and 
faith  of  the  Church.  Just  as  the  fountain  must  precede  the 
stream  which  flows  from  it.  Yet,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  in  the 
actual  study  of  the  family  of  theological  sciences,  History  must 
precede  and  lay  the  foundation  for  all  the  rest.  History  alone 
gives  us  the  Scriptures  in  which  our  revelation  is  recorded, 
and  the  means  whereby  the  several  books  and  their  ipsissima 
verba  are  critically  ascertained.  We  are  indebted  to  the  same 
source  for  our  methods  of  interpretation,  and  for  their  results 
as  illustrated  in  the  body  of  theological  literature  accumulated 
in  the  past;  also  for  our  creeds  and  confessions  and  records  of 
controversies,  and  hence  for  the  records  preserving  the  gradual 
evolution  of  our  system  of  doctrine.  In  the  order  of  pro- 
duction and  of  acquisition  History  comes  first,  while  in  the 
order  of  a  logical  exposition  of  the  constituent  theological 
sciences  in  their  relations  within  the  system,  History  has  the 
honor  of  crowning  the  whole  series. 

Historiccd  Theology  is  divided  into  Biblical  and  Ecclesiastical. 
The  first  derived  chiefly  from  inspired  sources,  and  continuing 
down  to  the  close  of  the  New  Testament  canon.  The  latter 
beginning  where  the  former  ends,  and  continuing  to  the  pres- 
ent time. 

Biblical  History  is  subdivided  into — 1st.  Old  Testament 
History,  including  (1)  the  Patriarchal,  (2)  Mosaic,  and  (3)  Pro- 
phetical eras,  together  with  (4)  the  history  of  the  chosen  peo- 
ple during  the  interval  between  the  close  of  the  Old  and  the 
opening  of  the  New  Testament.  2d.  New  Testament  His- 
tory, including  (1)  the  life  of  Christ,  (2)  The  founding  of  the 
Christian  Church  by  the  Apostles  down  to  the  end  of  the  first 
century. 

With  respect  to  Ecclesiastical  History  several  preliminary 
departments  of  study  are  essential  to  its  prosecution  as  a 
science. 

1st.  Several  of  the  auxiliary  sciences  already  enumerated 
must   be  cited  as  specifically  demanded   in  this  connection 


HISTORICAL    THEOLOGY.  27 

These  are— (1.)  Ancient,  Mediaeval,  and  Modern  Geography. 
(2.)  Chronology.  (3.)  The  Antiquities  of  all  the  peoples  embraced 
in  the  area  through  which  the  Church  has  at  any  period  ex- 
tended. (4.)  Statistics,  exhibiting  the  actual  condition  of  the 
world  at  any  particular  period.  (5.)  The  entire  course  of  General 
History. 

2d.  The  Sources  from  which  Ecclesiastical  History  is  de- 
rived should  be  critically  investigated.  (1.)  Monumental  sources, 
such  as  (a)  buildings,  (b)  inscriptions,  (c)  coins,  etc.  (2.)  Docu- 
mental, which  are — (a.)  Public,  such  as  the  Acts  of  Councils, 
the  briefs,  decretals,  and  bulls  of  Popes;  the  archives  of  govern- 
ments,  and  the  creeds,  confessions,  catechisms,  and  liturgies  of 
the  Churches,  etc.,  etc.  (b.)  Private  documents,  such  as  con- 
temporary literature  of  all  kinds,  pamphlets,  biographies, 
annals,  and  later  reports  and  compilations. 

3d.  The  History  of  the  literature  of  ecclesiastical  history 
from  Eusebius  to  Neander,  Kurtz,  and  Schaff.  _  The  methods 
which  have  been  and  which  should  be  followed  in  the  arrange- 
ment of  the  material  of  Church  History. 

The  actual  Method  always  has  been  and  probably  always 
will  be  a  combination  of  the  two  natural  methods — (a)  chrono- 
logical, and  (b)  topical. 

The  fundamental  principle  upon  which,  according  to  Dr. 
M'Clintock,  the  materials  of  Church  History  should  be  ar- 
ranged, is  the  distinction  between  the  life  and  the  faith  of  the 
Church.  The  two  divisions  therefore,  are  (1)  History  of  the 
life  of  the  Church,  or  Church  History  proper,  and  (2)  History 
of  the  thought  of  the  Church,  or  Doctrine-History. 

1st.  The  History  of  the  Life  of  the  Church  deals  with  per- 
sons, communities,  and  events,  and  should  be  treated  according 
to  the  ordinary  methods  of  historical  composition. 

2d.  The  History  of  the  Thought  of  the  Church  comprises — 

(1.)  Patristics,  or  the  literature  of  the  early  Christian  Fathers; 
and  Patrology,  or  a  scientific  exhibition  of  their  doctrine. 

These  Fathers  are  grouped  under  three  heads — (a)  Apostol- 
ical, (b)  Ante-Nicene,  and  (c)  Post-Nicene,  terminating  with 
Gregory  the  Great  among  the  Latins,  a.  d.  604,  and  with  John 
of  Damascus  among  the  Greeks,  a.  d.  754.  This  study  involves 
the  discussion  of  (a)  the  proper  use  of  these  Fathers,  and  their 
legitimate  authority  in  modern  controversies;  (b)  a  full  history 
of  their  literature,  and  of  the  principal  editions  of  their  works ; 
and  (c)  the  meaning,  value,  and  doctrine  of  each  individual 
Father  separately — 

(2.)  Christian  Archeology,  which  treats  of  the  usage,  wor- 
ship, discipline  of  the  early  Church,  and  the  history  of  Chris- 
tian worship,  art,  architecture,  poetry,  painting,  music,  etc  ,  etc 


28  THEOLOGICAL   ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

(3.)  Doctrine-History,  or  the  critical  history  of  the  genesis 
and  development  of  each  element  of  the  doctrinal  system  of 
the  Church,  or  of  any  of  its  historical  branches,  with  an  account 
of  all  the  heretical  forms  of  doctrine  from  which  the  truth  has 
been  separated,  and  the  history  of  all  the  controversies  by 
means  of  which  the  elimination  has  been  effected.  This  will, 
of  course,  be  accompanied  with  a  critical  history  of  the  entire 
Literature  of  Doctrine-History,  of  the  principles  recognized, 
the  methods  pursued,  and  the  works  produced. 

(4.)  Symbolics,  which  involves — (a.)  The  scientific  deter- 
mination of  the  necessity  for  and  uses  of  public  Creeds  and 
Confessions,  (b.)  The  history  of  the  occasions,  of  the  actual 
genesis,  and  subsequent  reception,  authority,  and  influence 
of  each  one  of  the  Creeds  and  Confessions  of  Christendom, 
(c.)  The  study  of  the  doctrinal  contents  of  each  Creed,  and  of 
each  group  of  Creeds  separately,  and  (d.)  Comparative  Sym- 
bolics, or  the  comparative  study  of  all  the  Confessions  of  the 
Church,  and  thence  a  systematic  exhibition  of  all  their  respect- 
ive points  of  agreement  and  of  contrast. 

M'Clintock's  "Theological  Encyclopaedia";  "Notes  on  Ec- 
clesiastical History,"  by  Dr.  J.  A.  Alexander,  edited  by  Dr.  S, 
D.  Alexander. 


CHAPTER    II. 

ORIGIN  OF  THE  IDEA  OF  GOD  AND  PROOF  OF  HIS  EXISTENCE. 

1.  What  is  the  distinction  between  a  nominal,  and  a  real  deJU 
nition  ?  and  give  the  true  definition  of  the  word  God. 

A  nominal  definition  simply  explains  the  meaning  of  the 
term  used,  while  a  real  definition  explains  the  nature  of  the 
thing  signified  by  the  term. 

The  English  word  God  is  by  some  derived  from  "good." 
Since,  however,  its  various  forms  in  cognate  languages  could 
not  have  had  that  origin,  others  derive  it  from  the  Persic  GJioda 
— dominus,  "possessor."  The  Latin  Deus,  and  the  Greek  ©eds 
have  been  commonly  derived  from  the  Sanscrit  div  to  give 
"light."  But  Curtius,  Cremer,  and  others  derive  it  from  Bed  in 
QeddadOat  "  to  implore."     ©sui  is  "  He  to  whom  one  prays." 

The  word  God  is  often  used  in  a  pantheistic  sense,  for  the 
impersonal,  unconscious  ground  of  all  being,  and  by  many  for 
the  unknowable  first  cause  of  the  existent  world.  It  is  for  this 
reason  that  so  many  speculators,  who  actually  or  virtually  deny 
the  existence  of  the  God  of  Christendom,  yet  indignantly  repu- 
diate the  charge  of  atheism,  because  they  admit  the  existence 
of  a  self-existent  substance  or  first  cause  to  which  they  give  the 
name  God,  while  they  deny  to  it  the  possession  of  the  prop- 
erties generally  designated  by  the  term. 

But,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  in  consequence  of  the  predomi- 
nance of  Christian  ideas  in  the  literature  of  civilized  nations 
for  the  last  eighteen  centuries,  the  term  "  God  "  has  attained  the 
definite  and  permanent  sense  of  a  self-existent,  eternal,  and 
absolutely  perfect  free  personal  Spirit,  distinct  from  and  sov- 
ereign over  the  world  he  has  created. 

The  man  who  denies  the  existence  of  such  a  being  denies 
God. 

2.  How  can  a  "  real "  definition  of  God  be  constructed  t 

Evidently  God  can  be  defined  only  in  so  far  as  he  is  known 
to  us,  and  the  condition  of  the  possibility  of  our  knowing  him 


30  THE    BEING    OF   GOD. 

is  the  fact  that  we  were  created  in  his  image.  Every  definition 
of  God  must  assume  this  fact,  that  in  an  essential  sense  he  and 
his  intelligent  creatures  are  beings  of  the  same  genus.  He  is 
therefore  defined  by  giving  his  genus  and  specific  difference. 
Thus  he  is  as  to  genus,  an  intelligent  personal  Spirit.  He  is, 
as  to  his  specific  difference,  as  to  that  which  constitutes  him 
God,  infinite,  eternal,  unchangeable  in  his  being,  in  his  wisdom, 
in  his  power,  in  his  holiness,  and  in  all  perfections  consistent 
with  his  being. 

3.  To  what  extent  is  the  idea  of  God  due  to  Tradition  ? 

It  is  evident  that  the  complete  idea  of  God  presented  in  the 
foregoing  definition  has  been  attained  only  by  means  of  the 
supernatural  revelation  recorded  in  the  Christian  Scriptures. 
It  is  a  fact  also  that  the  only  three  Theistic  religions  which 
have  ever  prevailed  among  men  (the  Jewish,  Mohammedan 
and  Christian)  are  historically  connected  with  the  same  revela- 
tion. It  is  also,  of  course,  in  vain  to  speculate  as  to  what 
would  be  the  action  of  the  human  mind  independent  of  all 
inherited  habits,  and  of  all  traditional  opinions.  We  are  en- 
tirely without  experience  or  testimony  as  to  any  kind  of  knowl- 
edge attained  or  judgments  formed  under  such  conditions.  It 
is  moreover  certain  that  the  form  in  which  the  theistic  concep- 
tion is  realized,  and  the  associations  with  which  it  is  accom- 
panied, are  determined  in  the  case  of  each  community  by  the 
theological  traditions  they  have  inherited  from  their  fathers. 

It  is,  on  the  other  hand,  indubitably  certain  that  all  men 
under  all  known,  and  therefore  under  all  truly  natural  con- 
ditions, do  spontaneously  recognize  the  divine  existence  as 
more  or  less  clearly  revealed  to  them  in  the  constitution  and 
conscious  experience  of  their  own  souls,  and  in  external  nature. 
The  theistic  conception  hence  is  no  more  due  to  authority,  as 
often  absurdly  charged,  than  the  belief  in  the  subjective  reality 
of  spirit  or  in  the  objective  reality  of  matter  formed  under  the 
same  educational  conditions.  The  recognition  of  the  self-man- 
ifest God  is  spontaneous,  and  universal,  which  proves  the  evi- 
dence to  be  clear  and  everywhere  present,  and  convincing  to 
all  normally  developed  men. 

4.  Is  the  idea  of  God  innate?    And  is  it  an  intuitive  truth? 

That  depends  upon  the  sense  in  which  the  respective  terms 
are  taken.  It  is  evident  that  there  are  no  "  innate  "  ideas  in 
the  sense  that  any  child  was  ever  born  with  a  conception  of 
the  divine  being,  or  any  other  conception  already  formed  in  his 
mind  It  is  also  certain  that  the  human  mind  when  developed 
under  purely  natural  conditions,  in  the  absence  of  all  super- 


IN    WHAT   SENSE    INNATE?  31 

natural  revelation,  can  never  attain  to  an  adequate  conception 
of  the  divine  nature.  On  the  other  hand,  however,  all  history 
proves  that  the  idea  of  God  is  innate  in  the  sense  that  the 
constitutional  faculties  of  the  human  soul  do,  under  all  natural 
conditions,  secure  the  spontaneous  recognition,  more  or  less 
clear,  of  God  as  the  ultimate  ground  of  all  being,  and  as  the 
Lord  of  conscience,  self-manifested  in  the  soul  and  in  the  world. 
It  is  innate  in  so  much  as  the  evidence  is  as  universally  present 
as  the  light  of  day,  and  the  process  by  which  it  is  apprehended 
is  constitutional. 

If  the  term  "intuition"  is  taken  in  its  strict  sense  of  a  direct 
vision  of  a  truth,  seen  in  its  own  light  to  be  necessary,  by  an 
intellectual  act  incapable  of  being  resolved  into  more  elementary 
processes  of  thought,  then  the  existence  of  God  is  not  a  truth 
apprehended  intuitively  by  men.  The  process  whereby  it  is 
reached,  whether  spontaneously  or  by  elaborate  reasoning,  em- 
braces many  indubitable  intuitions  as  elements,  but  no  man 
apprehends  God  himself  by  a  direct  intuition. 

Because — (1.)  Although  the  recognition  of  the  divine  exist- 
ence is  necessary  in  the  sense  that  the  great  majority  of  men 
recognize  the  truth,  and  are  unable  to  disbelieve  it  even  when 
they  wish,  and  no  one  can  do  so  without  doing  violence  to  his 
nature,  yet  it  is  not  necessary  to  thought  in  the  sense  that  the 
non-existence  of  God  is  unthinkable.  (2.)  Because  God  mani- 
fests himself  to  us  not  immediately  but  mediately  through  his 
works,  and  there  is  always  present,  at  least  implicitly,  an  infer- 
ence in  the  act  whereby  the  soul  recognizes  his  presence  and 
action.  (3.)  The  true  idea  of  God  is  exceedingly  complex,  and 
is  reached  by  a  complex  process,  whether  spontaneous  or  not, 
involving  various  elements  capable  of  analysis  and  description. 

On  the  other  hand  it  is  true  that  God  manifests  himself  in 
his  working  in  our  souls  and  in  external  nature  just  as  the 
invisible  souls  of  our  fellow-men  manifest  themselves,  and  we 
spontaneously  recognize  him  just  as  we  do  them.  We  recog- 
nize them  because  (a)  we  are  generically  like  them,  and  (Z>)  their 
attributes  are  significally  expressed  in  their  words  and  actions. 
And  we  recognize  God  because  (a)  we  have  been  made  in  his 
image,  which  fact  we  spontaneously  recognize  (b)  from  his  self- 
revelations  in  consciousness,  especially  in  conscience,  and  from 
the  characteristics  of  the  external  world. 

"While  the  mental  process  which  has  been  described — the 
theistic  inference — is  capable  of  analysis,  it  is  itself  synthetic. 
The  principles  on  which  it  depends  are  so  connected  that  the 
mind  can  embrace  them  all  in  a  single  act,  and  must  include 
and  apply  them  all  in  the  apprehension  of  God.  Will,  intel- 
ligence, conscience,  reason,  and  the  ideas  which  they  supply; 


32  THE   BEING    OF   GOD. 

cause,  design,  goodness,  infinity,  and  the  arguments  which 
rest  on  these  ideas — all  coalesce  into  this  one  grand  issue." — 
"Theism"  by  Prof.  Flint,  pp.  71,  72. 

5.  If  the  existence  of  God  is  spontaneously  recognized  by  all  men 
wider  normal  conditions  of  consciousness,  what  is  the  value  of  formal 
arguments  to  prove  that  existence  ?  And  what  are  the  arguments 
generally  used  ? 

1st.  These  arguments  are  of  value  as  analyses  and  scientific 
verifications  of  the  mental  processes  implicitly  involved  in 
the  spontaneous  recognition  of  the  self-manifestations  of  God. 
2d.  They  are  of  use  also  for  the  purpose  of  vindicating  the 
legitimacy  of  the  process  against  the  criticisms  of  skeptics. 
3d.  Also  for  the  purpose  of  quickening  and  confirming  the  spon- 
taneous recognition  by  drawing  attention  to  the  extent  and 
variety  of  the  evidence  to  which  it  responds.  4th.  The  vari- 
ous arguments  are  convergent  rather  than  consecutive.  They 
do  not  all  establish  the  same  elements  of  the  theistic  concep- 
tion, but  each  establishes  independently  its  separate  element, 
and  thus  is  of  use  (a)  in  contributing  confirmatory  evidence  that 
God  is,  and  (b)  complementary  evidence  as  to  what  God  is. 

They  constitute  an  organic  whole,  and  are  the  analysis  and 
illustration  of  the  spontaneous  act  whereby  the  mass  of  men 
have  always  recognized  God.  "Although  causality  does  not 
involve  design,  nor  design  goodness,  design  involves  causality, 
and  goodness  both  causality  and  design.  The  proofs  of  intelli- 
gence are  also  proofs  of  power;  and  the  proofs  of  goodness  are 
proofs  of  both  intelligence  and  power.  The  principles  of  reason 
which  compel  us  to  think  of  the  Supreme  Moral  Intelligence  as 
self-existent,  eternal,  infinite,  and  unchangeable  Being,  supple- 
ment the  proofs  from  other  sources,  and  give  self-consistency 
and  completeness  to  the  doctrine  of  theism." — "Theism,"  Prof. 
Flint,  pp.  73,  74. 

The  usual  arguments  will  be  examined  under  the  following 
heads: 

1st.  The  Cosmological  Argument,  or  the  evidence  for  God's 
existence  as  First  Cause. 

2d.  The  Teleological  Argument,  or  the  evidence  of  God's 
existence  afforded  by  the  presence  of  order  and  adaptation  in 
the  universe. 

3d.  The  Moral  Argument,  or  the  evidence  afforded  by  the 
moral  consciousness  and  history  of  mankind. 

4th.  The  evidence  afforded  by  the  phenomena  of  Scripture 
and  the  supernatural  history  they  record. 

5th.  The  A  priori  Argument,  and  the  testimony  afforded  by 
reason  to  God  as  the  Infinite  and  Absolute. 


THE    COSMOLOGICAL   ARGUMENT.  33 

$.  State  the  Cosmological  Argument. 

It  may  be  stated  in  the  form  of  a  syllogism,  thus — 

Major  Premise. — Every  new  existence  or  change  in  any 
thing  previously  existing  must  have  had  a  cause  pre-existing 
and  adequate. 

Minor  Premise. — The  universe  as  a  whole  and  in  all  its 
parts  is  a  system  of  changes. 

Conclusion. — Hence  the  universe  must  have  a  cause  exterior 
to  itself,  and'  the  ultimate  or  absolute  cause  must  be  eternal, 
uncaused,  and  unchangeable. 

1st.  As  to  the  major  premise;  the  causal  judgment  is  in- 
tuitive and  absolutely  universal  and  necessary.  It  has  been 
denied  theoretically  by  some  speculators,  as  Hume  and  Mill, 
but  it  is  always  used  by  them  and  all  others  in  all  their  rea- 
soning as  to  the  origin  of  the  world,  as  well  as  of  all  things  it 
contains.  The  judgment  is  unavoidable;  the  opposite  is  un- 
thinkable. Something  exists  now,  therefore  something  must 
have  existed  from  eternity,  and  that  which  has  existed  from 
eternity  is  the  cause  of  that  which  exists  now. 

It  has  been  claimed  that  the  causal  judgment  leads  tD  an 
infinite  regressive  series  of  causes  and  effects.  But  this  is 
absurd.  (1.)  The  judgment  is  not  that  every  thing  must  have 
a  cause,  but  that  every  new  thing  or  change  must  have  been 
caused.  But  that  which  is  eternal  and  immutable  needs  no 
cause.  (2.)  An  infinite  series  of  causes  and  effects  is  absurd, 
for  that  is  only  a  series  of  changes,  which  is  precisely  that 
which  demands  a  cause,  and  all  the  more  imperatively  in  pro- 
portion to  its  length.  A  real  cause,  on  the  other  hand, — that 
in  which  the  causal  judgment  can  alone  absolutely  rest, — must 
be  neither  a  change  nor  a  series  of  changes,  but  something 
uncaused,  eternal  and  immutable. 

As  a  matter  of  fact  all  philosophers  and  men  of  science 
without  exception  assume  the  principles  asserted.  They  all 
postulate  an  eternal,  self-existent,  unchangeable  cause  of  the 
universe,  whether  a  personal  spirit,  or  material  atoms,  or  a 
substance  of  which  both  matter  and  spirit  are  modes,  or  an 
unconscious  intelligent  world-soul  in  union  with  matter. 

2d.  As  to  the  minor  premise.  The  fact  that  the  universe 
as  a  whole  and  in  all  its  parts  is  a  system  of  changes  is  empha- 
sized by  every  principle  and  lesson  of  modern  science.  Every 
discovery  in  the  fields  of  geology  and  astronomy,  and  all  spec- 
ulation— as  the  nebular  hypothesis  and  the  hypothesis  of  evolu- 
tion— embody  this  principle  as  their  very  essence. 

But  John  Stuart  Mill  in  his  "Essay  on  Theism,"  pp.  142,  143, 
says:   "There  is  in  nature  a  permanent  element,  and  also  a 


34  THE    BEING    Ob    LOU. 

changeable:  the  changes  are  always  the  effects  of  previous 
changes;  the  permanent  existences,  so  far  as  we  know,  are  not 
effects  at  all.  .  .  .  There  is  in  every  object  another  and 
permanent  element,  viz.,  the  specific  elementary  substance  or 
substances  of  which  it  consists,  and  their  inherent  properties. 
These  are  not  known  as  beginning  to  exist;  within  the  range 
of  human  knowledge  they  had  no  beginning,  consequently  no 
cause;  though  they  themselves  are  causes  or  concauses  of  every 
thing  that  takes  place."  "Whenever  a  physical  phenomenon 
is  traced  to  its  cause,  that  cause  when  analyzed  is  found  to  be 
a  certain  quantum  of  force,  combined  with  certain  collocations. 
.  .  The  force  itself  is  essentially  one  and  the  same,  and 
there  exists  of  it  in  nature  a  fixed  quantity,  which  (if  the  the- 
ory of  the  conservation  of  forces  be  true)  is  never  increased 
or  diminished.  Here  then  we  find  in  the  changes  of  material 
nature  a  permanent  element,  to  all  appearance  the  very  one 
of  which  we  are  in  quest.  This  it  is  apparently  to  which,  if  to 
any  thing,  we  must  assign  the  character  of  First  Cause." — 
"Essay  on  Theism,"  pp.  144,  145. 

We  answer — (1.)  The  existence  of  "Energy"  in  any  of  its 
convertable  forms  dissociated  from  matter  is  absolutely  un- 
thinkable. This  is  recognized  as  an  unquestionable  scientific 
truth  by  Stewart  and  Tait  ("Unseen  Universe,"  p.  79).  (2.)  It 
is  an  obvious  fact  "that  all  but  an  exceedingly  small  trac- 
tion of  the  light  and  heat  of  the  sun  and  stars  goes  out  into 
space,  and  does  not  return  to  them.  In  the  next  place  the  vis- 
ible motion  of  the  large  bodies  of  the  universe  is  gradually 
being  stopped  by  something  which  may  be  denominated  ethe- 
rial  friction,"  and  at  last  they  must  fall  together,  and  constitute 
by  successive  aggregations  one  mass.  "In  fine  the  degradation 
of  Energy  of  the  visible  universe  proceeds,  pari  passu,  with 
the  aggregation  of  mass.  The  very  fact,  therefore,  that  the 
large  masses  of  the  visible  universe  are  of  finite  size,  is  suffi- 
cient to  assure  us  that  the  process  can  not  have  been  going  on 
forever,  or  in  other  words  that  the  visible  universe  must  have 
had  an  origin  in  time" — since  («.)  Energy  remains  aggregated 
in  finite  quantities  yet  undiffused,  and  (b)  since  the  matter  of 
the  universe  still  remains  in  separate  masses.  Thus  the  very 
law  of  the  correlation  of  Energy  to  which  Mill  appeals  proves, 
when  really  tested,  that  the  visible  universe  had  a  beginning 
and  will  have  an  end.  Stewart  and  Tait  ("Unseen  Universe, ' 
p.  166).  (3.)  His  assumption,  also,  that  the  matter  of  the  uni- 
verse is  in  its  ultimate  atoms  eternal  and  unchangeable,  is  un- 
E roved  and  contrary  to  scientific  analogy.  Clark  Maxwell  (in 
is  address  as  President  of  the  British  Association  for  Advance- 
ment of  Science,  1870)  says:  "The  exact  equality  of  each  mole- 


THE    TELEOLOGICAL    ARGUMENT.  35 

cule  to  all  others  of  the  same  kind  gives  it,  as  Sir  John  Her- 
schell  has  well  said,  the  essential  character  of  a  manufactured 
article,  and  precludes  the  idea  of  its  being  eternal  and  self-ex- 
istent." (4.)  As  a  matter  of  fact  all  evolution  theories  as  to 
the  genesis  of  the  universe  necessarily  postulate  a  commence- 
ment in  time,  and  a  primordial  fire-mist.  But  this  fire-mist 
can  not  be  the  First  Cause  the  causal  judgment  demands,  be- 
cause it  is  not  eternal  and  immutable.  If  eternal  it  would  be 
fully  developed.  If  fully  developed  it  could  not  develop  into 
the  universe.  If  immutable  it  could  not  pass  into  change.  If 
not  immutable  it  is  itself,  like  the  universe  which  issues  from 
it,  a  transient  condition  of  matter,  like  all  other  change  de- 
manding for  itself  a  cause. 

7.  State  the  Teleological  Argument. 

Teleology  from  t£1o<;,  end,  and  \6yos,  discourse,  is  the  sci- 
ence of  final  causes,  or  of  purposes  or  design  as  exhibited  in  the 
adjustments  of  parts  to  wholes,  of  means  to  ends,  of  organs  to 
uses  in  nature.  It  is  also  familiarly  called  the  Argument  from 
Design ;  and  is  ultimately  based  upon  the  recognition  of  the 
operations  of  an  intelligent  cause  in  nature.  It  may  be  profit- 
ably stated  in  two  forms  based  respectively  on  the  more  general 
and  the  more  special  manifestations  of  that  intelligence. 

First  Form.  Major  Premise. — Universal  order  and  harmony 
in  the  conspiring  operation  of  a  vast  multitude  of  separate  ele- 
ments can  be  explained  only  by  the  postulate  of  an  intelligent 
cause. 

Minor  Premise. — The  universe  as  a  whole  and  in  all  its  parts 
is  a  fabric  of  the  most  complex  and  symmetrical  order. 

Conclusion. — Therefore  the  eternal  and  absolute  cause  of  the 
universe  is  an  intelligent  mind. 

Second  Form.  Major  Premise. — The  adjustment  of  parts  and 
the  adaptation  of  means  to  effect  an  end  or  purpose  can  be  ex- 
plained only  by  reference  to  a  designing  intelligence  and  will. 

Minor  Premise. — The  universe  is  full  of  such  adjustments  of 
parts,  and  of  organisms  composed  of  parts  conspiring  to  effect 
an  end. 

Conclusion. — Therefore  the  First  Cause  of  the  universe  must 
be  an  intelligent  mind  and  will. 

These  arguments  if  valid  amount  to  proving  that  God  is 
an  eternal  self-existing  Person.  For  the  assumption  of  an  un- 
conscious intelligence,  or  of  an  intelligence  producing  effects 
without  the  exercise  of  will  is  absurd.  These  phrases  repre- 
sent no  possible  ideas.  And  intelligence  and  will  together 
constitute  personality. 

As  to  the  first  form  of  the  argument  it  is  evident  that  the 


36  THE    BEING    OF   GOD. 

very  fact  that  science  is  possible  is  an  indubitable  proof  that 
the  order  of  nature  is  intellectual.  Science  is  a  product  ol  the 
human  mind,  which  is  absolutely  incapable  of  passing  beyond 
the  laws  of  its  own  constitution.  Intuitions  of  reason,  logical 
processes  of  analysis,  inductive  or  deductive  inference,  imagi- 
nation, invention,  and  all  the  activities  of  the  soul  organize  the 
scientific  process.  To  all  this  external  nature  is  found  perfectly 
to  correspond.  Even  the  most  subtle  solutions  of  abstract 
mathematical  and  mechanical  problems  have  been  subsequently 
found  by  experiment  to  have  been  anticipated  in  nature.  The 
laws  of  nature  are  expressions  of  numerical  and  geometrical 
harmonies,  and  are  instinct  with  reason  and  beauty.  Yet  these 
laws  although  invariable  under  invariable  conditions,  are  nei- 
ther eternal  nor  inherent  in  the  elementary  constitution  of  the 
universe.  The  properties  of  elemental  matter  are  constant, 
but  the  laws  which  organize  them  are  themselves  complicated 
effects  resulting  from  antecedent  adjustments  of  these  elements 
themselves  under  the  categories  of  time,  place,  quantity,  and 
quality.  As  these  adjustments  change  the  laws  change.  These 
adjustments,  therefore,  are  the  cause  of  these  laws,  and  the  ad- 
justments themselves  must  be  the  product  either  of  chance, 
which  is  absurd,  or  of  intelligence,  which  is  certain. 

This  intellectual  order  of  nature  is  the  first  necessary  postu- 
late of  all  science,  and  it  is  the  essence  of  all  the  processes  of 
the  universe  from  the  grouping  of  atoms  to  the  revolution  of 
worlds,  from  the  digestion  of  a  polyp  to  the  functional  action 
of  the  human  brain. 

As  to  the  second  form  of  this  Argument. — The  principle  of 
design  presupposes  the  general  intellectual  order  of  the  uni- 
verse and  her  laws,  and  presents  in  advance  the  affirmation 
that  the  character  of  the  First  Cause  is  further  manifested  by 
the  everywhere  present  evidence  that  these  general  laws  are 
made  to  conspire  by  special  adjustments  to  the  accomplishment 
of  ends  evidently  intended.  This  principle  is  illustrated  by 
the  mutual  adjustments  of  the  various  provinces  of  nature,  and 
especially  by  the  vegetable  and  animal  organisms,  and  the  re- 
lations they  involve,  of  organ  to  organism,  of  organism  to  in- 
stinct, and  of  single  organisms  and  classes  of  organisms  to 
each  other  and  to  their  physical  surroundings.  In  many  cases 
the  intention  of  these  special  adjustments  is  self-evident  and 
undeniable,  as  in  the  case  of  the  parts  of  the  eye  to  the  pur- 
pose of  vision.  In  other  cases  it  is  more  obscure  and  conject- 
ural. In  the  present  condition  of  science  we  can  understand 
only  in  part,  but  from  the  beginning  the  evidence  of  intel- 
ligent purpose  has  been  transparent  and  overwhelming.  A 
single  sentence  proves  intelligence,  although  the  context  is 


OBJECTIONS    TO    THE    TELEOLOGICAL    ARGUMENT.       37 

undecipherable.     But  every  advance  of  science  discloses  the 
same  evidence  over  wider  areas  and  in  clearer  light. 

8.  State  and  ansiuer  the  objections  to  the  theistic  inference  from 
blue  evidences  of  special  design. 

1st.  Hume  ("Dialogues  on  Natural  Religion,"  Pt.  VII.,  etc.,) 
argues  that  our  conviction  that  adaptation  implies  design  is 
due  to  experience  and  cannot  go  beyond  it.  That  our  judg- 
ment that  natural  organisms  imply  design  in  their  cause  is  an 
inference  from  the  analogy  of  human  contrivance,  and  its  effects. 
He  argues  further  that  this  analogy  is  false  because — (1.)  The 
human  worker  is  antecedently  known  to  us  as  an  intelligent 
contriver,  while  the  author  of  nature  is  antecedently  unknown, 
and  the  very  object  sought  to  be  verified  by  the  theistic  infer- 
ence. (2.)  The  processes  of  nature  are  all  unlike  the  processes 
by  which  man  executes  his  contrivances,  and  the  formation  of 
the  world,  and  the  institution  of  the  processes  of  nature  are 
peculiar  effects  of  the  like  of  which  we  have  no  experience. 

We  ansiuer — (1.)  The  argument  rests  upon  a  false  assump- 
tion of  fact.  The  human  contriver,  the  soul  of  our  fellow-man, 
is  not  antecedently  known  to  us,  nor  is  ever  in  any  way  known 
except  by  the  character  of  the  works  by  which  he  manifests 
himself.  And  precisely  in  the  same  way  and  to  the  same  ex- 
tent is  the  Author  of  nature  known.  (2.)  It  rests  on  a  false 
assumption  of  principle.  The  analogy  of  human  contrivances 
is  not  the  ground  of  our  conviction  that  order  and  adaptation 
imply  intelligence.  It  is  a  universal  and  necessary  judgment 
of  reason  that  order  and  adaptation  can  only  spring  from  an 
intelligent  cause,  or  from  accident,  and  that  the  latter  supposi- 
tion is  absurd. 

2d.  Some  men  of  science,  who  have  become  habituated  to  the 
consideration  of  the  universe  as  an  absolute  unit,  all  the  pro- 
cesses of  which  are  executed  by  invariable  general  laws  (a 
mode  of  thought  in  which  for  centuries  science  was  anticipated 
by  Augustinian  Theology),  object  that  in  inferring  intention 
from  the  adjustment  of  parts  in  special  groups  or  systems,  the 
natural  theologian  had  mistaken  a  part  for  a  whole,  and  an 
incidental  effect  of  a  general  law,  resulting  from  special  and 
temporary  conditions,  for  the  real  end  of  the  law  itself.  They 
hold  that  if  even  the  First  Cause  of  the  universe  were  intelli- 
gent, it  were  infinitely  absurd  for  men  to  presume  to  interpret 
his  purpose  from  what  we  see  of  the  special  results  of  the 
working  of  laws  working  from  infinite  past  time,  through  infi- 
nite space,  and  over  an  infinite  system  of  conspiring  parts. 

We  answer — (1.)  It  is  self-evident  that  the  relations  of  the 
parts  of  a  special  whole  conspiring  to  a  special  end  may  be 


38  THE    BEING    OF   GOD. 

fully  understood,  while  the  relations  of  that  special  whole  to 
the  general  whole  may  be  entirely  unknown,  although  strong 
light  is  thrown  even  on  this  side  by  reason  and  revelation.  A 
single  bone  of  an  unknown  species  of  animal  gives  undeniable 
evidence  of  special  adaptation,  and  may  even,  as  scientists  justly 
claim,  throw  light  beyond  itself  upon  the  constitution  of  that 
otherwise  unknown  whole  to  which  it  belonged.  (2.)  We  con- 
fess that  this  criticism,  although  failing  as  to  the  argument 
from  design,  has  force  relatively  to  the  mode  in  which  that 
argument  has  often  been  conceived.  The  older  natural  theolo- 
gians  did  often  to  too  great  a  degree  abstract  individual  or- 
ganisms from  the  great  dynamic  whole  of  which  they  are 
products  as  well  as  parts.  Dr.  Flint  ("Theism,"  p.  150)  well 
distinguishes  between  the  intrinsic,  the  extrinsic,  and  the  ulti- 
mate ends  of  any  special  adjustment.  Thus  the  intrinsic  end 
of  that  special  adjustment  of  parts  called  the  eye  is  vision.  Its 
extrinsic  ends  are  the  uses  it  serves  to  the  animal  it  belongs 
to,  and  all  the  uses  he  serves  to  all  he  stands  immediately  or 
remotely  related  to.  Its  ultimate  end  is  the  end  of  the  uni- 
verse itself.  "Theism,"  p.  163 — "When  we  affirm,  then,  that 
final  causes  in  the  sense  of  intrinsic  ends  are  in  things,  we 
affirm  merely  that  things  are  systematic  unities,  the  parts  of 
which  are  definitely  related  to  one  another,  and  co-ordinated 
to  a  common  issue ;  and  when  we  affirm  that  final  causes  in 
the  sense  of  extrinsic  ends  are  in  things,  we  affirm  merely  that 
things  are  not  isolated  and  independent  systems,  but  systems 
definitely  related  to  other  systems,  and  so  adjusted  as  to  be 
parts  or  components  of  higher  systems,  and  means  to  issues 
more  comprehensive  than  their  own." 

It  is  true  indeed  that  a  man  can  not  discern  the  ultimate 
end  of  a  part  until  he  discerns  the  ultimate  end  of  the  whole, 
and  that  he  can  not  discern  all  the  extrinsic  ends  of  any  spe- 
cial system  until  he  knows  all  its  relations  to  all  other  special 
systems.  Nevertheless,  as  a  man  who  knows  nothing  of  the 
relation  of  a  given  plant  or  animal  to  the  flora  or  fauna  of  a 
continent,  may  be  absolutely  certain  of  the  functions  of  the 
root  or  the  claw  in  the  economy  of  the  plant  or  beast,  so  the 
manner  in  which  all  the  parts  which  conspire  to  make  a  spe- 
cial whole  are  adapted  to  effect  that  end  may  be  perfectly  un- 
derstood, while  we  know  nothing  as  yet  of  the  extrinsic  relation 
of  that  special  whole  to  that  which  is  exterior  to  itself. 

3d.  It  has  been  claimed  in  recent  times  by  a  certain  clasa 
of  scientists  that  evidence  for  the  existence  of  God  afforded  by 
the  order  and  adaptation  exhibited  in  the  processes  of  nature 
has  been  very  much  weakened,  if  not  absolutely  invalidated, 
by  the  assumed  probability  of  the  alternative  hypothesis  of 


OBJECTIONS  TO   THE    TELE0L0G1CAL  ARGUMENT.         39 

Evolution.  There  are  many  theories  of  Evolution,  but  the 
term  in  the  general  sense  denotes  the  judgment  that  the  state 
of  the  universe  as  a  whole  and  in  all  its  parts  any  one  moment 
of  time,  has  its  cause  in  its  state  the  immediately  preceding 
moment,  and  that  these  changes  have  been  brought  about 
through  the  agency  of  powers  inherent  in  nature,  and  that 
they  may  be  traced  back  from  moment  to  moment  without 
any  break  of  causal  continuity  through  all  past  time. 

All  possible  theories  of  Evolution,  considered  in  their  rela- 
tion to  theology,  may  be  classified  thus:  (1.)  Those  which 
neither  deny  nor  obscure  the  evidence  which  the  order  and 
adaptation  observed  in  nature  afford  to  the  existence  of  God, 
and  his  immanence  in  and  providential  control  of  his  works. 
(2)  Those  which,  while  recognizing  God  as  the  original  source 
in  the  remote  past,  to  which  the  origination  and  the  primary 
adjustments  of  the  universe  are  to  be  referred,  yet  deny  his 
immanence  and  constant  providential  activity  in  his  works. 
(3.)  Those  which  professedly  or  virtually  obscure  or  deny  the 
evidence  afforded  by  the  order  and  adaptation  of  the  universe 
for  the  existence  and  activity  of  God  alike  as  Creator  and  as 
Providential  Ruler. 

With  the  first  class  of  Evolution  theories  the  Natural  Theo- 
logian has,  of  course,  only  the  most  friendly  interest. 

As  to  the  second  class,  which  admits  that  a  divine  intelli- 
gence contrived  and  inaugurated  the  universe  at  the  absolute 
beginning,  yet  deny  that  any  such  agent  is  immanent  in  the 
universe  controlling  its  processes,  we  remark — (1.)  That  the 
point  we  have  at  present  to  establish  is  the  eternal  self-exist- 
ence of  an  intelligent  First  Cause,  and  not  the  mode  of  his 
relation  to  the  universe.  The  latter  question  will  be  treated 
in  subsequent  chapters.  (2.)  It  is  far  more  philosophical,  and 
more  in  accordance  with  a  true  interpretation  of  the  scientific 
principle  of  continuity,  to  conceive  of  the  First  Cause  as  imma- 
nent in  the  universe,  and  as  organically  concurring  with  all 
unintelligent  second  causes  in  all  processes  exhibiting  power 
or  intelligence.  This  is  recognized  by  that  large  majority  of 
scientific  men  who  are  either  orthodox  Theists,  or  who  refer  all 
the  phenomena  of  the  physical  universe  to  the  dynamic  ac- 
tion of  the  divine  will.  (3.)  The  evidence  afforded  by  man's 
moral  consciousness  and  history  and  by  revelation,  to  the  im- 
manence and  effective  agency  of  God  in  all  his  works,  is  un- 
answerable. 

As  to  the  third  class  of  Evolution  theories,  which  do  either 
professedly  or  virtually  obscure  or  deny  the  evidence  afforded 
by  order  or  contrivance  to  an  intelligent  First  Cause  of  the 
Universe,  as  for  example  the  theory  oi'  Darwin  as  to  the  differ 


40  THE   BEING    OF   GOD. 

entiation  of  all  organisms  through  accidental  variations  occurring 
through  unlimited  time,  we  remark — 

1st.  Every  such  scheme,  when  it  is  proposed  as  an  account 
of  the  existing  universe,  must  furnish  a  probable  explanation 
of  all  classes  of  facts.  It  is  notorious  that  every  theory  of 
purely  natural  Evolution  fails  utterly  to  explain  the  following 
facts:  (1.)  The  origination  of  life.  It  could  not  have  existed 
in  the  fire-mist.  It  could  not  have  been  generated  by  that 
which  has  no  life.  The  mature  decision  of  science  to-day 
(1878)  is  expressed  in  the  old  axiom  omne  vivum  ex  vivo.  (2.) 
The  origin  of  sensation.  (3.)  Also  of  intelligence  and  will 
(4).  Also  of  conscience.  (5.)  The  establishment  of  distinct  log- 
ically correlated  and  persistent  types  of  genera  and  species, 
maintained  by  the  law  of  hybridity.  (6.)  The  origin  of  man, 
Prof.  Virchow  of  Berlin,  in  his  recent  address  at  the  German 
Association  of  Naturalists  and  Physicians  at  Munich,  says, 
"You  are  aware  that  I  am  now  specially  engaged  in  the  study 
of  anthropology ;  but  I  am  bound  to  declare  that  every  positive 
advance  which  Ave  have  made  in  the  province  of  prehistoric 
anthropology  has  actually  removed  us  further  from  the  proof 
of  such  connection  ({.  e.,  the  descent  of  man  from  any  lower 
type)." 

2d.  But  even  if  continuous  evolution  could  be  proved  as  a 
fact,  the  significance  of  the  evidence  of  intelligent  order  and 
contrivance  would  not  be  in  the  least  affected.  It  would  only 
establish  a  method  or  system  of  means,  but  could  in  no  degree 
alter  the  nature  of  the  effect,  nor  the  attributes  of  the  real  cause 
disclosed  by  them.  (1.)  The  laws  of  abiogenesis,  of  reproduc- 
tion, of  sexual  differentiation  and  reproduction,  of  heredity,  of 
variation,  such  as  can  evolve  sensation,  reason,  conscience,  and 
will  out  of  atoms  and  mechanical  energy,  would  all  still  remain 
to  be  accounted  for.  (2.)  Laws  are  never  causes,  but  always 
complicated  modes  of  action  resulting  from  the  co-action  of 
innumerable  unconscious  agents.  Instead,  therefore,  of  being 
explanations  they  are  the  very  complex  effects  for  which  reason 
demands  an  intellectual  cause.  (3.)  All  physical  laws  result 
from  the  original  properties  of  matter  acting  under  the  mutual 
condition  of  certain  complicated  adjustments.  Change  the  ad- 
justments and  the  laws  change.  The  laws  which  execute  evo- 
lution, or  rather  into  which  the  process  of  evolution  is  analyzed, 
must  be  referred  back  to  the  original  adjustments  of  the  ma- 
terial elements  of  the  fire-mist.  These  adjustments,  in  which 
all  future  order  and  life  is  by  hypothesis  latent,  must  have 
been  caused  by  chance  or  intelligence.  Huxley  in  his  "  Criti- 
cisms on  Origin  of  Species,"  p.  330,  founds  the  whole  logic  of 
Evolution  on  chance  thus:  It  has  been  •'demonstrated  that  an 


THE  MORAL  ARGUMENT.  41 

apparatus  thoroughly  well-adapted  to  a  particular  purpose,  may 
be  the  result  of  a  method  of  trial  and  error  worked  out  by  un- 
intelligent agents,  as  well  as  of  the  direct  application  of  the 
means  appropriate  to  that  end  by  an  intelligent  agent."  "Ac- 
cording to  Teleology,  each  organism  is  like  a  rifle  bullet  fired 
straight  at  a  mark;  according  to  Darwin  organisms  are  like 
grape-shot,  of  which  one  hits  something  and  the  rest  fall  wide." 
The  modern  scientific  explanation  of  the  processes  of  the  uni- 
verse by  physical  causes  alone,  to  the  exclusion  of  mind,  differs 
from  the  old  long-exploded  chance  theory,  only  by  the  acci- 
dents (a)  of  the  juggling  use  of  the  words  "laws  of  nature," 
(6)  and  the  assumption  that  chance  operating  through  indefi- 
nate  duration  can  accomplish  the  work  of  intelligence.  But  as 
no  man  can  believe  that  any  amount  of  time  will  explain  the 
form  of  flint  knives  and  arrow  heads,  in  the  absence  of  human 
agents,  or  that  any  number  of  throws  could  cast  a  font  of  type 
into  the  order  of  letters  in  the  plays  of  Shakespeare,  so  no  man 
can  rationally  believe  that  the  complicated  and  significantly 
intellectual  order  of  the  universe  sprang  from  chance.  (4.)  In 
artificial  breeding  man  selects.  In  "natural  selection"  nature 
selects.  Hence,  if  the  results  are  the  most  careful  adjustments 
to  effect  purpose,  it  follows  that  that  characteristic  must  be 
stamped  upon  the  organisms  by  nature,  and  hence  nature  itself 
must  therefore  be  intelligently  directed,  either  (a)  by  an  intel- 
ligence immanent  in  her  elements,  or  in  her  whole  as  organized, 
or  (b)  by  the  original  adjustment  of  her  machinery  by  an  intel- 
ligent Creator. 

9.  State  the  Moral  Argument,  or  the  Evidence  afforded  by  the 
Moral  Consciousness  and  History  of  mankind. 

The  Cosmological  argument  led  us  to  an  eternal  self-existent 
First  Cause.  The  argument  from  the  order  and  adaptation  dis- 
covered in  the  processes  of  the  universe  revealed  this  great 
First  Cause  as  possessing  intelligence  and  will;  that  is,  as  a 
personal  spirit.  The  moral  or  anthropological  argument  fur- 
nishes new  data  for  inference,  at  once  confirming  the  former 
conclusions  as  to  the  fact  of  the  existence  of  a  personal  intelli- 
gent First  Cause,  and  at  the  same  time  adding  to  the  concep- 
tion the  attributes  of  holiness,  justice,  goodness,  and  truth. 
The  argument  from  design  includes  the  argument  from  cause, 
and  the  argument  from  righteousness  and  benevolence  includes 
both  the  arguments  from  cause  and  from  design,  and  adds  to 
them  a  new  element  of  its  own. 

This  group  of  arguments  may  be  stated  thus : 
1st.  Consciousness  is  the  fundamental  ground  of  all  knowl- 
edge.    It  gives  us  immediately  the  knowledge  of  self  as  exist 


42  THE    BEING    OF   GOD. 

ing  and  as  the  subject  of  certain  attributes,  and  the  agent  in 
certain  forms  of  activity.  These  souls  and  all  their  attributes 
must  be  accounted  for.  They  have  not  existed  from  eternity. 
They  could  not  have  been  evolved  out  of  material  elements, 
because — (1.)  Consciousness  testifies  to  their  unity,  simplicity, 
and  spirituality.  (2.)  The  laws  of  reason  and  the  moral  sense 
can  not  be  explained  as  the  result  of  transformed  sense  impres- 
sions modified  by  association  derived  by  heredity  (Mill  and 
Spencer);  for,  (a)  they  are  universally  the  same,  (5)  incapable 
of  analysis,  (c)  necessary,  and  (d)  sovereign  over  all  impulses. 
Therefore  the  human  soul  must  have  been  created,  and  its  Cre- 
ator must  have  attributes  superior  to  his  work. 

2d.  Man  is  essentially  and  universally  a  religious  being 
The  sense  of  absolute  dependence  and  moral  accountability  is 
inherent  in  his  nature,  universal  and  necessary.  Conscience 
always  implies  responsibility  to  a  superior,  in  moral  authority, 
and  therefore  in  moral  character.  It  is  especially  implied  in 
the  sense  of  guilt  which  accompanies  every  violation  of  con- 
science. God  is  manifested  and  recognized  in  conscience  as  a 
holy,  righteous,  just,  and  intelligent  will;  i.  e.,  a  holy  personal 
spirit. 

3d.  The  adaptations  of  nature,  as  far  as  we  can  trace  their 
relations  to  sentient  beings,  are  characteristically  beneficent, 
and  evidence  a  general  purpose  to  promote  happiness,  and  to 
gratify  a  sense  of  beauty.  This  implies  design,  and  design  of 
a  special  esthetic  and  moral  character,  and  proves  that  the  First 
Cause  is  benevolent  and  a  lover  of  beauty. 

4th.  The  entire  history  of  the  human  race,  as  far  as  known, 
discloses  a  moral  order  and  purpose,  which  cannot  be  explained 
by  the  intelligence  or  moral  purpose  of  the  human  agents  con- 
cerned, which  discovers  an  all-embracing  unity  of  plan,  com- 
prehending all  peoples  and  all  centuries.  The  phenomena  of 
social  and  national  life,  of  ethnological  distribution,  of  the  de- 
velopment and  diffusion  of  civilizations  and  religions  can  be 
explained  only  by  the  existence  of  a  wise,  righteous,  and  be- 
nevolent ruler  and  educator  of  mankind. 

10.  State  and  answer  the  objections  to  the  Moral  Argument. 

These  objections  are  founded — 1st.  On  the  mechanical  in- 
variability of  natural  laws,  and  their  inexorable  disregard  of  the 
welfare  of  sentient  creatures.  2d.  The  sufferings  of  irrational 
animals.  3d.  The  prevalence  of  moral  and  physical  evils  among 
men.  4th.  The  unequal  apportionment  of  providential  favors, 
and  the  absence  of  all  proportion  between  the  measure  of 
happiness  allotted,  and  the  respective  moral  characters  of  the 
recipients. 


OBJECTIONS    TO    MORAL    ARGUMENT.  43 

These  difficulties,  more  or  less  trying  to  the  faith  of  all,  are 
the  real  occasion  in  the  great  majority  of  instances,  of  skep- 
tical atheism.  John  Stewart  Mill  in  his  "  Essay  on  Nature " 
("Three  Essays  on  Religion  ")  describes  it  as  the  characteristic 
of  "Nature"  ruthlessly  to  inflict  suffering  and  death,  and  affirms 
that  the  cause  of  nature,  if  a  personal  will,  must  be  a  monster 
of  cruelty  and  injustice.  In  his  "  Essay  on  Theism,"  Pt.  ii.,  he 
argues  that  the  attempt  to  maintain  that  the  author  of  nature, 
euch  as  we  know  it,  is  at  once  omniscient  and  omnipotent  and 
absolutely  just  and  benevolent  is  abominably  immoral.  That 
he  can  be  excused  of  cruelty  and  injustice  only  on  the  plea  of 
limited  knowledge  or  power,  or  both.  He  sums  up  his  con- 
clusion from  the  evidence  thus :  "  A  Being  of  great  but  limited 
power,  how  or  by  what  limited  we  cannot  even  conjecture;  of 
great  and  perhaps  unlimited  intelligence,  but  perhaps  also  more 
narrowly  limited  than  his  power:  who  desires  and  pays  some 
regard  to  the  happiness  of  his  creatures,  but  who  seems  to  have 
other  motives  of  action  which  he  cares  more  for,  and  who  can 
hardly  be  supposed  to  have  created  the  universe  for  that  pur- 
pose only."  \\\  his  "Autobiography,"  ch.  ii.,  he  says  of  hi?,  fa- 
ther, James  Mill,  "I  have  heard  him  say,  that  the  turning  point 
of  his  mind  on  the  subject  was  reading  Butler's  Analogy.  That 
work,  of  which  he  always  continued  to  speak  with  respect,  kept 
him,  as  he  said,  for  some  considerable  time,  a  believer  in  the 
divine  authority  of  Christianity ;  by  proving  to  him,  that  what- 
ever are  the  difficulties  of  believing  that  the  Old  and  New  Tes- 
taments proceed  from,  or  record  the  acts  of,  a  perfectly  wise 
and  good  being,  the  same  and  still  greater  difficulties  stand  in 
the  way  of  the  belief,  that  a  being  of  such  a  character  can  have 
been  the  Maker  of  the  universe.  He  considered  Butler's  argu- 
ment as  conclusive  against  the  only  opponents  for  who7n  it 
was  intended.  Those  who  admit  an  omnipotent  as  well  as 
perfectly  just  and  benevolent  Maker  and  Ruler  of  such  a  "world 
as  this,  can  say  little  against  Christianity  but  what  can  with 
at  least  equal  force  be  retorted  against  themselves.  Finding, 
therefore,  no  halting  place  in  Deism,  he  remained  in  a  state  of 
perplexity,  until,  doubtless  after  many  struggles,  he  yielded  to 
the  conviction,  that  concerning  the  origin  of  things  nothing 
whatever  can  be  known." 

We  answer — 1st.  It  is  unquestionably  true  that  God  has 
not  created  the  universe  for  the  single  purpose,  or  even  for  the 
chief  purpose,  of  promoting  the  happiness  of  his  creatures.  Our 
reason  and  observation,  and  the  Christian  Scriptures,  unite  in 
revealing  as  far  higher  and  more  worthy  ends  of  divine  action 
the  manifestation  of  his  own  glory,  and  the  promotion  by  edu- 
cation and  discipline  of  the  highest  excellence  of  his  intelligent 


44  THE    BEING    OF   GOD. 

moral  creatures.  It  is  evident  that  the  operation  of  inexorable 
general  laws,  and  the  mystery  and  sufferings  incident  to  this 
life,  may  be  the  most  effective  means  to  promote  those  ends. 
2d.  The  direct  intention  of  all  the  organs  with  which  sensi- 
tive creatures  are  endowed  is  evidently  to  promote  their  well- 
being  ;  pain  and  misery  are  incidental.  Even  the  sudden  vio- 
lent deaths  of  irrational  animals  probably  promote  the  largest 
possible  amount  of  sentient  happiness.  3d.  Conscience  has 
taught  men  in  all  ages  that  the  sufferings  incident  to  human 
life  are  the  direct  and  deserved  consequences  of  human  sin, 
either  penalties,  or  chastisements  benevolently  designed  for 
our  moral  improvement.  4th.  The  origin  of  sin  is  a  confessed 
mystery,  relieved  however  by  the  consideration,  that  it  results 
from  the  abuse  of  man's  highest  and  most  valuable  endowment, 
responsible  free  agency,  and  by  the  fact  revealed  in  the  Chris- 
tian Scriptures  that  even  sin  will  be  divinely  overruled  to  the 
fuller  manifestation  of  the  perfections  of  God,  and  to  the  higher 
excellence  and  the  more  perfect  happiness  of  the  intelligent 
creation.  5th.  The  inequalities  of  the  allotments  of  providence, 
and  the  disproportion  between  the  well-being  and  the  moral 
characters  of  men  in  this  life,  results  from  the  fact  that  it  is 
not  the  scene  of  rewards  and  punishments,  and  that  different 
characters  and  different  destinies  require  a  different  educational 
discipline,  and  it  points  to  future  readjustments  revealed  in  the 
Bible  (Ps.  lxxiii.).  6th.  Neither  the  teleological  nor  the  moral 
argument  involves  the  assertion  that  with  our  present  knowl- 
edge we  are  able  to  discern  in  the  universe  the  evidences  of 
either  infinite  or  perfect  wisdom  or  goodness.  These  are  both 
indicated  as  matters  of  fact,  and  general  characteristics  of  na- 
ture. But  our  discernment  of  both  is  necessarily  limited  by  the 
imperfections  of  our  knowledge.  Even  in  the  judgment  of  rea- 
son alone  the  infinite  probability  is  that  what  appears  to  us 
anomalous,  inconsistent  either  with  perfect  wisdom  or  perfect 
goodness,  will  be  found,  upon  the  attainment  of  more  adequate 
information  on  our  part,  to  illustrate  those  very  perfections 
which  we  have  been  tempted  to  think  they  obscure. 

11.  State  the  Scriptural  Evidence. 

Since  man  is  a  finite  and  guilty  and  morally  corrupt 
creature  it  is  unavoidable  that  the  self-manifestations  of  God 
in  nature  should  be  imperfectly  apprehended  by  him.  That 
supernatural  revelation  which  God  has  disclosed  through  an 
historical  process  of  special  interventions  in  chronological  suc- 
cessions, interpreted  l>y  a  supernaturally  endowed  order  of 
prophets,  and  recorded  in  the  Christian  Scriptures,  supple- 
ments the  light  of  nature,  explains  the  mysteries  of  provi 


THE    A    riUORI   ARGUMENT.  45 

dence,  and  furnishes  us  with  the  principles  of  a  true  theodice. 
The  God  whom  nature  veils  while  it  reveals  him,  stands  before 
us  unveiled  in  all  the  perfection  of  wisdom,  holiness,  and  love 
in  the  person  of  Christ.  He  who  hath  seen  Christ  hath  seen 
the  Father.  The  truth  of  Theism  is  demonstrated  in  his  per- 
son, and  henceforth  will  never  be  held  except  by  those  who 
loyally  acknowledge  his  Lordship  over  intellect  and  conscience 
and  life. 

12.  State  the  principle  upon  which  the  A  priori  arguments  for 
tJie  existence  of  God  rest,  the  value  of  the  principle,  and  the  prin- 
cipal forms  in  which  they  have  been  presented. 

An  a  posteriori  argument  is  one  which  logically  ascends 
from  facts  of  experience  to  causes,  or  principles.  Thus  by 
means  of  the  preceding  arguments  we  have  been  led  from 
the  facts  of  consciousness  and  of  external  nature  to  the  knowl- 
edge of  God  as  an  intelligent  and  righteous  personal  spirit, 
the  powerful,  wise,  and  benevolent  First  Cause  and  Moral 
Governor.  An  a  priori  argument  is  one  which  proceeds  from 
the  necessary  ideas  of  reason  to  the  consequences  necessarily 
deduced  from  them,  or  the  truths  necessarily  involved  in  them. 

It  is  certain  that  the  intuitions  of  necessary  truth  are  the 
same  in  all  men.  They  are  not  generalizations  from  experience, 
but  are  presupposed  in  all  experience.  They  bear  the  stamp 
of  universality  and  necessity.  They  have  objective  validity, 
not  depending  upon  the  subjective  state  of  personal  conscious- 
ness, nor  depending  upon  the  nature  of  things,  but  anterior 
and  superior  to  all  things.  What  then  can  be  the  ground  of 
eternal,  necessary,  universal,  unchangeable  truth,  unless  it  be 
an  infinite,  eternal,  self-existent,  unchangeable  nature,  of  whose 
essence  they  are. 

We  have  seen  that  our  reasons  can  rest  only  in  a  cause 
itself  uncaused.  An  uncaused  cause  must  be  eternal,  self-ex- 
istent, and  unchangeable.  We  have  in  our  minds  ideas  and 
intuitions  of  infinity  and  perfection,  as  well  as  of  eternity,  self- 
existence,  and  immutability.  "These,  unless  they  are  wholly 
delusive — which  is  what  we  are  unable  to  conceive — must  be 
predicable  of  some  being.  The  sole  question  is,  Of  what  being? 
It  must  be  of  him  who  lias  been  proved  to  be  the  First  Cause 
of  all  things,  the  source  of  all  the  power,  wisdom,  and  good- 
ness displayed  in  the  universe.  It  can  not  be  the  universe 
itself,  for  that  has  been  shown  to  be  but  an  effect,  to  have 
before  and  behind  it  a  Mind,  a  Person.  It  can  not  be  our- 
selves, or  any  thing  to  which  our  senses  can  reach,  seeing  that 
we  and  they  are  finite,  contingent,  and  imperfect.  The  author 
of  the  universe  alone — the  Father  of  our  spirits,  and  the  Givur 


46  THE    BEING    OF   GOD. 

of  every  good  and  perfect  gift — can  be  uncreated,  and  uncon- 
ditioned, infinite,  and  perfect.  This  completes  the  idea  of  God 
so  far  as  it  can  be  reached  or  formed  by  natural  reason.  And 
it  gives  consistency  to  the  idea.  The  conclusions  of  the  a  pos- 
teriori arguments  fail  to  satisfy  either  the  mind  or  the  heart 
until  they  are  connected  with  and  supplemented  by,  the  intui- 
tion of  the  reason — infinity.  The  conception  of  any  other  than 
an  infinite  God — a  God  unlimited  in  all  his  perfections — is  a 
self-contradictory  conception  which  the  intelligence  refuses  to 
entertain."— Dr.  Flint,  "Theism,"  p.  291. 

1.  Anselm,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  (1093-1109),  in  his 
"  Monologium  and  Proslogium,"  states  the  argument  thus :  We 
have  the  idea  of  an  infinitely  perfect  being.  But  real  exist- 
ence is  a  necessary  element  of  infinite  perfection.  Therefore 
an  infinitely  perfect  being  exists,  otherwise  the  infinitely  per- 
fect as  we  conceive  it  would  lack  an  essential  element  of 
perfection.  2.  Des  Cartes  (1596-1(350)  in  his  "  Meditationes  de 
prima  philosophia"  prop.  2,  p.  89,  states  it  thus:  The  idea  of  an 
infinitely  perfect  being  which  we  possess  could  not  have  orig- 
inated in  a  finite  source,  and  therefore  must  have  been  commu- 
nicated to  us  by  an  infinitely  perfect  being.  He  also  in  other 
connections  claims  that  this  idea  represents  an  objective  reality, 
because  (1)  it  is  pre-eminently  clear,  and  ideas  carry  convic- 
tion of  correspondence  to  truth  in  proportion  to  their  clearness, 
and  (2)  it  is  necessary.  3.  Dr.  Samuel  Clarke,  in  1705,  published 
his  "Demonstration  of  the  Being  and  Attributes  of  God."  He 
argues  that  time  and  space  are  infinite  and  necessarily  existent. 
But  they  are  not  substances.  Therefore  there  must  exist  an 
eternal  infinite  substance  of  which  they  are  properties. 

The  Principal  Anti-Theistic  Theories. 

13.  What  is  Atheism  ? 

Atheism,  according  to  its  etymology,  signifies  a  denial  of 
the  being  of  God.  It  was  applied  by  the  ancient  Greeks  to 
Socrates  and  other  philosophers,  to  indicate  that  they  failed  to 
conform  to  the  popular  religion.  In  the  same  sense  it  was 
applied  to  the  early  Christians.  Since  the  usage  of  the  term 
Theism  has  been  definitely  fixed  in  all  modern  languages,  athe- 
ism necessarily  stands  for  the  denial  of  the  existence  of  a  per- 
sonal Creator  and  Moral  Governor.  Notwithstanding  that  the 
belief  in  a  personal  God  is  the  result  of  a  spontaneous  recog- 
nition of  God  as  manifesting  himself  in  consciousness  and  the 
works  of  nature,  atheism  is  still  possible  as  an  abnormal  state 
of  consciousness  induced  by  sophistical  speculation  or  by  the 
indulgence  of  sinful  passions,  precisely  as  subjective  idealism  is 


ANTI-TIIEISTIC    THEORIES.  47 

possible.  It  exists  in  the  following  forms:  1.  Practical,  2.  Spec- 
ulative. Again  Speculative  Atheism  may  be  (1)  Dogmatic,  as 
when  the  conclusion  is  reached  either  (a)  that  God  does  not 
exist,  or  (&)  that  the  human  faculties  are  positively  incapable 
of  ascertaining  or  of  verifying  his  existence  (e.  g.,  Herbert 
Spencer,  "First  Principles,"  pt.  1).  (2.)  Skeptical,  as  when  the 
existence  is  simply  doubted,  and  the  conclusiveness  of  the  evi- 
dence generally  relied  upon  is  denied.  (3.)  Virtual,  as  when 
(a.)  principles  are  maintained  essentially  inconsistent  with  the 
existence  of  God,  or  with  the  possibility  of  our  knowledge 
of  him  :  e.  g.,  by  materialists,  positivists,  absolute  idealists. 
(&.)  When  some  of  the  essential  attributes  of  the  divine  nature 
are  denied,  as  by  Pantheists,  and  by  J.  S.  Mill  in  his  "  Essays 
on  Religion."  (c.)  When  explanations  of  the  universe  are  given 
which  exclude  (a1)  the  agency  of  an  intelligent  Creator  and 
Governor,  (bl)  the  moral  government  of  God,  and  the  moral 
freedom  of  man,  e.  g.,  the  theories  of  Darwin  and  Spencer, 
and  Necessitarians  generally.  See  Ulrici,  "God  and  Nature' 
and  "Review  of  Strauss";  Strauss,  "Old  and  New";  Buchanan, 
"Modern  Atheism";  Tulloch,  "Theism";  Flint,  "Theism." 

14.  What  is  Dualism? 

Dualism,  in  philosophy  the  opposite  of  Monism,  is  the  doo 
trine  that  there  are  two  generically  distinct  essences,  Mattel 
and  Spirit  in  the  universe.  In  this  sense  the  common  doctrine 
of  Christendom  is  dualistic.  All  the  ancient  pagan  philosophers 
held  the  eternal  independent  existence  of  matter,  and  conse- 
quently all  among  them  who  were  also  Theists  were  strictly 
cosmological  dualists.  The  religion  of  Zoroaster  was  a  my- 
thological dualism  designed  to  account  for  the  existence  of 
evil.  Ormuzd  and  Ahriman,  the  personal  principles  of  good 
and  evil,  sprang  from  a  supreme  abstract  divinity,  Akerenes. 
Some  of  the  sects  of  this  religion  held  dualism  in  its  absolute 
form,  and  referred  all  evil  to  vXrjy  self-existent  matter.  This 
principle  dominated  among  the  various  spurious  Christian 
Gnostic  sects  in  the  second  century,  and  in  the  system  of 
Manes  in  the  third  century,  and  its  prevalence  in  the  oriental 
world  is  manifested  in  the  ascetic  tendency  of  the  early  Chris- 
tian Church.  See  J.  F.  Clarke,  "Ten  Religions";  Hardwicke, 
"Christ  and  other  Masters";  Neander's  "Church  History"; 
Pressense,  "Early  Years  of  Christianity";  Tennemann,  "Man- 
ual Hist.  Philos  " 

15.  What  is  Polytheism  ? 

Polytheism  (ttoAvs  and  0e6?)  distributes  the  perfections  and 
functions  of  the  infinite  God  among  many  limited  gods.     It 


48  THE   BEING    OF   GOD. 

sprang  out  of  the  nature-worship  represented  in  the  earliest 
Hindu  Veds,  so  soon  and  so  generally  supplanting  primitive 
monotheism.  At  first,  as  it  long  remained  in  Chaldea  and 
Arabia,  it  consisted  in  the  worship  of  elements,  especially  of 
the  stars  and  of  fire.  Subsequently  it  took  special  forms  from 
the  traditions,  the  genius,  and  the  relative  civilizations  of  eacli 
nationality.  Among  the  rudest  savages  it  sank  to  Fetichism 
as  in  western  and  central  Africa.  Among  the  Greeks  it  was 
made  the  vehicle  for  the  expression  of  their  refined  humanita- 
rianism  in  the  apotheosis  of  heroic  men  rather  than  the  revela- 
tion of  incarnate  gods.  In  India,  springing  from  a  pantheistic 
philosophy,  it  has  been  carried  to  the  most  extravagant  ex- 
treme, both  in  respect  to  the  number,  and  the  character  of  its 
deities.  Whenever  polytheism  has  been  connected  with  spec- 
ulation it  appears  as  the  exoteric  counterpart  of  pantheism. 
Carlyle,  "Hero-worship";  Max  M  idler,  "Compar.  Myth.,"  in 
Oxford  Essays;  Prof.  Tyler,  "Theology  of  Greek  Poets." 

16.  What  is  Deism  ? 

Deism,  from  deus,  although  etymologically  synonymous  with 
theism,  from  6e6s,  has  been  distinguished  from  it  since  the  mid- 
dle of  the  sixteenth  century,  and  designates  a  system  admitting 
the  existence  of  a  personal  Creator,  but  denying  his  controlling 
presence  in  the  world,  his  immediate  moral  government,  and 
all  supernatural  intervention  and  revelation.  The  movement 
began  with  the  English  Deists,  Lord  Herbert  of  Cherbury 
(1581-1648),  Hobbes  (fl680),  Shaftesbury,  Bolingbroke  (1678- 
1751),  Thomas  Paine  (|1809),  etc.  It  passed  over  to  France 
and  was  represented  by  Voltaire  and  the  Encyclopedists.  It 
passed  over  into  Germany  and  was  represented  by  Lessing  and 
lleimarus  ("Wolfenbiittel  Fragmentist" ),  and  invading  Church 
and  Theology,  it  was  essentially  represented  by  the  old  school 
of  naturalistic  rationalists,  who  admitted  with  it  a  low  and 
inconsequent  form  of  Socinianism,  e.  g.,  Eichhorn  (1752-1827), 
Paulus  (1761-1851),  Wegscheider  (1771-1848).  It  has  been 
represented  in  America  by  the  late  Theodore  Parker,  and  the 
extreme  left  of  the  party  known  as  "  Liberal  Christians."  In 
Germany  mere  deistical  naturalism  gave  way  to  pantheism, 
as  the  latter  has  recently  given  way  to  materialistic  atheism, 
e.  q.,  Strauss.  See  Leland,  "View  of  Deistical  Writers";  Van 
Mildert's  "Boyle  Lectures";  Farrar,  "Critical  Hist,  of  Free- 
thought";  Dorner,  "Hist.  Protest.  Theology";  Hurst,  "Hist,  of 
nationalism " ;  Butler's  "Analogy." 

17.  JVJtat  is  Idealism? 

"  Idealism  is  the  doctrine  that  in  external  perceptions  the 


ANTI-THEISTIC    THEORIES.  49 

objects  immediately  known  are  ideas.     It  has  been  held  under 
various  forms." — See  Hamilton's  "  Reid,"  Note  C. 

"Some  of  the  phases  of  modern  Idealism  among  the  Ger- 
mans, may  be  seen  in  the  following  passage  from  Lewes: — 'I 
see  a  tree.  The  common  psychologists  tell  me  that  there  are 
three  things  implied  in  this  one  fact  of  vision,  viz. :  a  tree,  an 
image  of  that  tree,  and  a  mind  that  apprehends  that  image. 
Fichte  tells  me  that  it  is  I  alone  who  exist.  The  tree  and  the 
image  of  it  are  one  thing,  and  that  is  a  modification  of  my 
mind.  This  is  subjective  idealism.  Schelling  tells  me  that  both 
the  tree  and  my  ego  (or  sell),  are  existences  equally  real  or 
ideal;  but  they  are  nothing  less  than  manifestations  of  the 
absolute,  the  infinite,  or  unconditioned.  This  is  objective  ideal- 
ism. But  Hegel  tells  me  that  all  these  explanations  are  false. 
The  only  thing  really  existing  (in  this  one  fact  of  vision)  is 
the  idea,  the  relation.  The  ego  and  the  tree  are  but  two  terms 
of  the  relation,  and  owe  their  reality  to  it.  This  is  absolute 
idealism.  According  to  this,  there  is  neither  mind  nor  matter, 
heaven  or  earth,  God  or  man.'  The  doctrine  opposed  to  Ideal- 
ism is  Realism." — "Vocabulary  of  the  Philosophical  Sciences," 
by  C.  P.  Krauth,  D.D.,  1878. 

18.  WJiat  is  Materialism  ? 

As  soon  as  we  begin  to  reflect  we  become  conscious  of  the 
presence  of  two  everywhere  interlaced,  but  always  distinct 
classes  of  phenomena — of  thought,  feeling,  will  on  the  one 
hand,  and  of  extension,  inertia,  etc.,  on  the  other.  Analyze 
these  as  we  may,  we  never  can  resolve  the  one  into  the  other. 
The  one  class  we  come  to  know  through  consciousness,  the 
other  through  sensation,  and  we  know  the  one  as  directly  and 
as  certainly  as  the  other;  and  as  we  can  never  resolve  either 
into  the  other,  we  refer  the  one  class  to  a  substance  called 
spirit,  and  the  other  class  to  a  substance  called  matter. 

Materialists  are  a  set  of  superficial  philosophers  in  whom 
the  moral  consciousness  is  not  vivid,  and  who  have  formed  the 
habit  of  exclusively  directing  attention  to  the  objects  of  the 
senses,  and  explaining  physical  phenomena  by  mechanical  con- 
ceptions. Hence  they  fall  into  the  fundamental  error  of  affirm- 
ing— (1.)  That  there  is  but  one  substance,  or  rather  that  all  the 
phenomena  of  the  universe  can  be  explained  in  terms  of  atoms 
and  force.  (2.)  That  intelligence,  feeling,  conscience,  volition, 
etc.,  are  only  properties  of  matter,  or  functions  of  material 
organization,  or  modifications  of  convertible  energy.  Intelli- 
gence did  not  precede  and  effect  order  and  organization,  but 
order  and  organization  developed  by  laws  inherent  in  matter 
develop  intelligence.    The  German  Darwinists  style  that  system 


50  THE    BEING    OF    GOD. 

the  " merfianico-causal"  development  of  the  universe;  Huxlej 
says  life,  and  hence  organization  results  from  the  "moleculai 
mechanics  of  the  protoplasm." 

We  answer — 1st.  This  is  no  recondite  theory,  as  some  pre- 
tend, concerning  substance.  If  the  phenomena  of  conscious- 
ness are  resolved  into  modifications  of  matter  and  force,  i.  e., 
ultimately  into  some  mode  of  motion,  then  all  ultimate  and 
necessary  truth  is  impossible,  duty  has  no  absolute  obligation, 
conscience  is  a  lie,  consciousness  a  delusion,  and  freedom  of 
will  absurd.  All  truth  and  duty,  all  honor  and  hope,  all  mo- 
rality and  religion,  would  be  dissolved. 

2d.  The  theory  is  one-sided  and  unwarrantable.  In  fact  our 
knowledge  of  the  soul  and  of  its  intuitions  and  powers  are 
more  direct  and  clear  than  the  scientist's  knowledge  of  matter. 
What  does  he  know  of  the  real  nature  of  the  atom,  of  force, 
of  gravity,  etc. 

3d.  The  explanation  of  matter  by  mind,  of  force  and  ordei 
by  intelligence  and  will,  is  rational.  But  the  explanation  ol 
the  phenomena  of  intelligence,  will,  and  consciousness  as  modes 
of  matter  or  force  is  absurd.  The  reason  can  rest  in  the  one 
and  can  not  in  the  other.  The  soul  of  man  is  known  to  be  an 
absolute  cause — matter  is  known  not  to  be,  to  be  but  the  vehi- 
cle of  force,  and  force  to  be  in  a  process  of  dispersion.  Intelli- 
gence is  known  to  be  the  cause  of  order  and  organization, 
organization  can  not  be  conceived  to  be  the  cause  of  intelligence. 

Tyndal  ("Athenseum"  for  August  29,  1868)  says:  "The 
passage  from  the  physics  of  the  brain  to  the  corresponding 
facts  of  consciousness  is  unthinkable.  Granted  that  a  definite 
thought  and  a  definite  molecular  action  in  the  brain  occur 
simultaneously:  Ave  do  not  possess  the  intellectual  organ,  nor 
apparently  any  rudiment  of  the  organ,  which  would  enable  us 
to  pass,  by  a  process  of  reasoning,  from  the  one  phenomenon  to 
the  other.  ...  In  affirming  that  the  growth  of  the  body 
is  mechanical,  and  that  thought  as  exercised  by  us  has  its 
correlative  in  the  physics  of  the  brain,  I  think  the  position  of 
the  Materialist  is  stated  as  far  as  that  position  is  a  tenable  one. 
I  think  the  Materialist  will  be  able  finally  to  maintain  this  posi- 
tion against  all  attacks;  but  I  do  not  think  as  the  human  mind 
is  at  present  constituted,  that  he  can  pass  beyond  it.  I  do  not 
think  he  is  entitled  to  say  that  his  molecular  grouping  and 
his  molecular  motions  explain  every  thing.  In  reality  they 
explain  nothing." 

19.  Wliat  is  Pantheism  ? 

Pantheism  (itav  Qs6<)  is  absolute  monism,  maintaining  thai 
the  entire  phenomenal  universe  is  the  everchanging  existence- 


ANTI-THEISTIC    THEORIES.  51 

t'onn  of  the  one  single  universal  substance,  which  is  God.  Thus 
God  is  all,  and  all  is  God.  God  is  r6  6v,  absolute  being,  of 
which  every  finite  thing  is  a  differentiated  and  transient  form. 
This  doctrine  is,  of  course,  capable  of  assuming  very  various 
forms.  (1.)  The  one-substance  pantheism  of  Spinoza.  He  held 
that  God  is  the  one  absolute  substance  of  all  things,  possessing 
two  attributes,  thought  and  extension,  from  which  respectively 
the  physical  and  intellectual  worlds  proceed  by  an  eternal,  nec- 
essary, and  unconscious  evolution.  (2.)  The  material  panthe- 
ism of  Strauss,  "Old  and  New  Faith.'  (3.)  The  idealistic  pan- 
theism of  Schelling,  maintaining  the  absolute  identity  of  subject 
and  object;  and  of  Hegel,  maintaining  the  absolute  identity  of 
thought  and  existence  as  determinations  of  the  one  absolute 
Spirit. 

It  is  obvious  that  pantheism  in  all  its  forms  must  either 
deny  the  moral  personality  of  God,  or  that  of  man,  or  both. 
Logically  it  renders  both  impossible.  God  comes  to  self-con- 
sciousness only  in  man ;  the  consciousness  of  free  personal  self- 
determination  in  man  is  a  delusion ;  moral  responsibility  is  a 
prejudice ;  the  supernatural  is  impossible  and  religion  is  super- 
stition. Yet  such  is  the  flexibility  of  the  system,  that  in  one 
form  it  puts  on  a  mystical  guise,  representing  God  as  the  all- 
person  absorbing  the  world  into  himself,  and  in  the  opposite 
form  it  puts  on  a  purely  naturalistic  guise,  representing  the 
world  as  absorbing  God,  and  the  human  race  in  its  ever-cul- 
minating development  the  only  object  of  reverence  or  devotion. 
The  same  Spinoza  who  was  declared  by  Pascal  and  Bossuet  to 
be  an  atheist,  is  represented  by  Jacobi  and  Schleiermacher  to 
be  the  most  devout  of  mystics.  The  intense  individuality  of 
the  material  science  of  this  century  has  reacted  powerfully  on 
pantheism,  substituting  materialism  for  idealism,  retiring  God, 
and  elevating  man,  as  is  seen  in  the  recent  degradation  of  pan- 
theism into  atheism  in  the  case  of  Feuerbach  and  Strauss,  etc. 

The  most  ancient,  persistent,  and  prevalent  pantheism  of 
the  world's  history  is  that  of  India.  As  a  religion  it  has 
moulded  the  character,  customs,  and  mythologies  of  the  people 
for  4,000  years.  As  a  philosophy  it  has  appeared  in  three  prin- 
cipal forms — the  Sanckhya,  the  Nyaya,  and  the  Vedanta.  Pan- 
theistic modes  of  thought  more  or  less  underlay  all  forms  of 
Greek  philosophv,  and  especially  the  Neo- Platonic  school  of 
Plotinus  (f205-270),  Porphyry  (233-305),  and  Jamblicus  (f333). 
It  reappeared  in  John  Scotus  Erigena  (b.  800),  and  with  the  Neo- 
Platonists  of  the  Renaissance — e.  g.,  Giordano  Bruno  (flOOO). 
Modern  pantheism  began  with  Benedict  Spinoza  (1632-1677), 
and  closes  with  the  disciples  of  Schelling  and  Hegel. 

Besides  pure  pantheism  there  has  existed  an  infinite  variety 


52  THE    BEING    OF   GOD. 

of  impure  forms  of  virtual  pantheism.  This  is  true  of  all  sj  s« 
terns  that  affirm  the  impersonality  of  the  infinite  and  absolute, 
and  which  resolve  all  the  divine  attributes  into  modes  of  caus- 
ality. The  same  is  true  of  all  systems  which  represent  provi- 
dential preservation  as  a  continual  creation,  deny  the  real  effi- 
ciency of  second  causes,  and  make  God  the  only  agent  in  the 
universe,  e.  g.,  Edwards  on  "  Original  Sin,"  pt.  4,  ch.  3,  and 
Emmons.  Under  the  same  general  category  falls  the  fanciful 
doctrine  of  Emanations,  which  was  the  chief  feature  of  Oriental 
T heosophies,  and  the  Hylozoism  of  Averroes  (fll98),  which  sup- 
poses the  co-eternity  of  matter  and  of  an  unconscious  plastio 
anima  mundi.  See  Hunt,  "  Essay  on  Pantheism,"  London,  1866 ; 
Saisset,  "  Modern  Pantheism,"  Edinburgh,  1863 ;  Cousin,  "  His- 
tory of  Modern  Philosophy";  Ritter's  "Hist.  Ancient  Philos."; 
Buchanan,  "Faith  in  God,"  etc.;  Dollinger,  "Gentile  and  Jew,' 
London,  1863;  Max  Muller,  "Hist.  Anc.  Sancrit  Lit" 


CHAPTER   III. 

THE  SOURCES  OF  THEOLOGY. 

A  general  definition  of  Theology,  Chap.  I.,  Ques.  1. 

1.  What  are  the  two  great  departments  into  which  Theology  is 
divided  ? 

1st.  Natural  Theology,  which  is  the  science  which  proposes 
to  itself  these  two  questions:  (1.)  Can  the  real  objective  exist- 
ence of  God  as  a  personal  extramundane  Spirit  be  established 
by  satisfactory  evidence?  (2.)  What  may  be  legitimately  as- 
certained concerning  the  true  nature  of  God  in  himself,  and 
concerning  his  relations  to  the  universe,  and  especially  to 
man,  by  the  light  of  nature  alone.  A  distinction  here  must 
be  carefully  observed  between  that  knowledge  of  God  which 
can  be  reached  from  the  evidences  afforded  in  his  works  by 
the  powers  of  human  reason  independently  of  all  suggestions 
afforded  by  supernatural  revelation,  e.  g.,  the  theology  of  Plato 
and  Cicero;  and  on  the  other  hand,  that  knowledge  of  God 
which  the  human  faculties  are  now  able  to  deduce  from  the 
phenomena  of  nature  under  the  borrowed,  if  unacknowledged, 
light  of  a  supernatural  revelation,  e.  g.,  the  theology  of  Modern 
nationalists. 

2d.  Revealed  Theology  is  that  science  which,  Natural  Theol- 
ogy presupposed,  comprehends  as  its  province  all  that  has  been 
revealed  to  us  concerning  God  and  his  relation  to  the  universe, 
and  especially  to  mankind,  through  supernatural  channels. 

2.  Wliat  extreme  vieivs  have  been  entertained  as  to  the  possi- 
Irility  and  validity  of  Natural,  and  as  distinguished  from  Revealed 
Tlieology? 

1st.  That  of  Deists  or  naturalistic  Theists,  who  deny  either 
the  possibility  or  the  historical  fact  of  a  supernatural  revela- 
tion, and  maintain  that  Natural  Theology  discovers  all  that  it 
is  either  possible  or  necessary  for  man  now  to  know  about  God, 
or  his  relation  to  us.     Many  German  supernaturalistic  ration. 


54  THE    SOURCES    OE    THEOLOGY. 

alists,  while  they  admit  the  historical  fact  of  a  supernatural 
revelation,  hold  that  its  only  office  is  to  enforce  and  illustrate 
the  truths  already  given  in  Natural  Religion,  which  are  suffi- 
cient in  themselves,  and  need  re-enforcement  only  because  they 
are  not  sufficiently  attended  to  by  men. 

This  is  disproved  below,  Ques.  7-10. 

2d.  The  opposite  extreme  has  been  held  by  some  Christians, 
that  Natural  Theology  has  no  real  existence ;  but  that  we  are  in- 
debted to  supernatural  revelation  for  our  first  valid  information 
that  God  exists.  This  is  disproved — (1.)  By  the  testimony  ot 
Scripture,  Rom.  i.  20-24,  and  ii.  14,  15,  etc.  (2.)  By  the  testi- 
mony of  experience,  e.  g.,  the  knowledge  of  God  attained  by 
the  more  eminent  heathen  philosophers,  however  imperfect. 
(3.)  The  validity  of  the  Theistic  inference  from  the  phenomena 
of  consciousness  and  of  the  external  world  has  been  vindicated 
in  Chapt.  II.  (4.)  It  is  self-evident  that  some  knowledge  of 
God  is  logically  presupposed  in  the  recognition  of  a  supernatu- 
ral revelation  as  coming  from  him. 

3.  State  the  principal  answers  given  to  the  question,  "  Wliat  is 
the  Source  or  Standard  of  Knowledge  in  Theology  ?  " 

1st.  The  Theory  of  Schleiermacher  and  the  Transcendent- 
al school.  He  was  preacher  and  professor  in  Halle  and  Berlin 
from  1796  to  1834,  and  was  the  author  of  the  "Mediation 
Theology,"  and  inaugurated  the  movement  by  his  "  Discourses 
on  Religion,  addressed  to  the  Educated  among  its  Despisers," 
1799,  and  his  "  Christian  Faith  on  the  Principles  of  the  Evan- 
gelical Church,"  1821. 

He  considered  religion  to  be  a  form  of  feeling,  and  to  be 
grounded  on  our  constitutional  God-consciousness,  which  con- 
sists, on  the  intellectual  side,  of  an  intuition  of  God,  and  on 
the  emotional  side,  of  a  feeling  of  absolute  dependence.  Chris- 
tianity consists  of  that  specific  form  of  this  constitutional 
religious  consciousness  which  was  generated  in  the  bosom  of 
his  disciples  by  the  God-man  Christ.  And  as  human  conscious- 
ness in  general  is  generated  in  every  individual  by  his  social 
relations,  so  Christian  consciousness  is  generated  in  communion 
with  that  society  (the  Church )  which  Christ  founded  and  of 
which  he  is  the  centre  of  life.  And  as  the  common  intuitions 
of  men  are  the  last  appeal  in  all  questions  of  natural  knowledge, 
so  the  common  Christian  consciousness  of  the  Church  is  the 
last  appeal  in  all  questions  of  Christian  faith,  which  in  its 
totality  is  the  rule  of  Faith,  and  not  the  Scriptures. 

Objection.  (1.)  This  view  is  inconsistent  with  the  nature  of 
Christianity,  which  as  a  remedial  scheme  rests  upon  certain 
historical  facts,  which  must  be  known  in  order  to  be  effective, 


DIFFERENT  ANSWERS    CONSIDERED.  55 

and  which  can  be  authoritatively  made  known  only  by  means  of 
a  supernatural  revelation.  No  form  of  intuition  can  reach  them. 
(2.)  It  is  inconsistent  with  the  uniform  conviction  of  Christians 
that  Christianity  is  a  system  of  divinely  revealed  facts  and 
principles.  (3.)  It  affords  no  criterion  of  truth.  It  must  re- 
gard all  the  doctrines  of  the  various  Church  parties  as  recon- 
cilable variations  of  the  same  fundamental  truth.  (4.)  It  is 
inconsistent  with  the  claims  of  Scripture  as  the  word  of  God, 
and  with  its  explicit  teaching,  as  to  the  nature  of  revelation 
communicating  objective  truth,  and  as  to  the  necessity  of  the 
knowledge  of  the  truth  so  conveyed  in  order  to  salvation. 

2d.  The  Mystic  Doctrine  of  the  Inner  Light,  or  the  General 
Inspiration  of  all  Men,  or  at  least  all  Christians,  as  held  by 
the  Quakers.  This  view  differs  from  Rationalism  because  it 
makes  the  feelings  rather  than  the  understanding  the  organ  of 
religious  truth,  and  because  it  regards  the  "  inward  light "  as 
the  testimony  of  God's  Spirit  to  and  within  the  human  spirit. 
It  differs  from  our  doctrine  of  Inspiration  because  it  is  the 
practical  guidance  and  illumination  of  the  divine  Spirit  in  the 
hearts  of  all  believing  men,  and  not  confined  to  the  official 
Founders  and  First  Teachers  of  the  Church.  It  differs  from 
spiritual  illumination,  which  we  believe  to  be  experienced  by 
all  truly  regenerated  believers  only,  because  (1)  it  leads  to 
the  knowledge  of  truth  independently  of  its  revelation  in 
Scripture,  and  (2)  it  belongs  to  all  men  who  are  willing  to 
attend  to  and  obey  it. 

Objection.  (1.)  This  view  contradicts  Scripture,  (a.)  Which 
never  promises  an  illumination  which  will  carry  men  beyond, 
or  make  men  independent  of  its  own  teaching.  (?>.)  They  teach 
the  absolute  necessity  for  salvation  of  the  objective  revelation 
given  in  the  written  word  (Rom.  xi.  14-18).  (2.)  Is  disproved 
by  experience,  which  (a)  testifies  that  the  "inner  light"  af- 
fords no  criterion  to  determine  the  truth  of  different  doctrines, 
(/;)  that  it  has  never  availed  to  lead  any  individual  or  commu- 
nity to  the  knowledge  of  saving  truth  independently  of  the 
objective  revelation,  and  (c)  that  it  has  always  led  to  an 
irreverent  depreciation  of  the  word,  and  in  the  long  run  to 
disorder  and  confusion. 

III.  The  Theory  of  an  Inspired  Church,  that  is  inspired  in 
the  persons,  or  at  least  the  official  teaching,  of  its  chief  pas- 
tors and  teachers.     This  view  is  refuted  Chapter  V. 

IV.  The  common  postulate  of  all  Rationalists,  that  Reason 
is  the  source  and  measure  of  all  our  knowledge  of  God.  Thia 
view  is  considered  and  refuted  below,  Questions  7-10. 

V.  The  true  and  Protestant  Doctrine.  That  the  Scriptures 
of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  being  given  by  the  Inspiration 


56  THE    SOUKCES    OF    THEOLOGY. 

of  God,  are  his  words  to  us,  and  an  infallible  and  authoritative 
Kule  of  Faith  and  Practice,  and  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others, 
the  one  source  and  standard  of  Christian  Theology. 

4.  What  is  the  precise  sense  in  ivhich  the  term  "  Reason "  U 
used  by  those  who  contrast  it  to  Faith  as  the  source  of  Religions 
Knowledge  ? 

The  term  "Reason"  is  used  in  various  senses  by  different 
classes  of  Rationalists.  By  some  it  is  used  as  the  organ  of  the 
higher  institutions  apprehending  necessary  and  ultimate  truth, 
Such  is  the  God-consciousness  of  Schleiermacher,  and  the  intui- 
tion of  the  infinite  of  Schelling  and  Cousin,  and  such,  in  effect, 
are  the  moral  intuitional  feelings  of  Newman  and  Parker.  By 
others  "  Reason "  stands  for  the  understanding,  or  logical 
faculty  of  observing,  judging,  and  drawing  inferences  in  the 
sphere  of  experience.  Hence  it  comprehends  as  its  ground 
and  standard  the  mass  of  the  accredited  knowledge  and  opinion 
of  the  day.  Practically  all  men  designate  by  the  respectable 
name  of  reason  their  own  permanent  habit  and  attitude  of 
mind,  with  the  organized  mass  of  knowledge,  opinion,  and 
prejudice  with  which  their  minds  are  full.  That  is  said  to 
stand  to  reason  which  is  congruous  to  that  habit,  or  to  that 
mass  of  accepted  opinion. 

In  this  controversy,  however,  we  designate  by  the  term 
"Reason"  man's  entire  natural  faculty  of  ascertaining  the 
truth,  including  intuitions,  understanding,  imagination,  affec- 
tions and  emotions,  acting  under  natural  conditions,  and  inde- 
pendently of  supernatural  assistance. 

5.  Wliat  is  Rationalism  ? 

A  "  Naturalist "  is  one  who  holds  that  Nature  is  a  complete 
self-contained,  self-supported  sphere  in  itself,  and  hence  denies 
either  the  reality  of  the  supernatural,  or  that  it  can  be  an 
object  of  human  knowledge;  and  hence  denies  the  necessity, 
or  possibility,  or  actual  fact,  of  a  supernatural  revelation.  The 
term  "Rationalist"  is  more  general.  It  includes  the  Naturalist 
of  every  grade,  and  also  all  those  who  while  admitting  the  fact 
of  a  divine  revelation,  yet  maintain  that  revelation,  its  doc- 
trines and  records,  are  all  to  be  measured  and  accredited  or 
rejected  and  interpreted  by  human  reason  as  ultimate  arbiter. 
With  the  Rationalists  Reason  is  the  ultimate  ground  and  meas- 
ure of  faith. 

[n  its  historical  sense  Rationalism,  as  a  mode  of  freethink- 
ing  springing  up  in  the  midst  of  the  Christian  Church  itself, 
giving  rise  to  an  illegitimate  use  of  reason  in  the  interpretation 
of  the  Scriptures  and  their  doctrines,  has  always  been  active  in 


RATIONALISM.  57 

some  form,  and  in  one  degree  or  another,  and  has  been  signally 
manifest  in  a  class  of  the  Mediaeval  schoolmen,  and  in  the  disci- 
ples of  Socinus.  Its  modern  and  most  extreme  form  originated 
in  Germany  in  the  middle  of  the  last  century.  The  causes  to 
which  it  is  to  be  attributed  were — (a.)  The  low  state  of  religion 
pervading  all  Protestant  countries.  (6.)  The  influence  of  the 
formal  philosophy  and  dogmatism  of  Wolf,  the  disciple  of  Leib- 
nitz, (c.)  The  influence  of  the  English  Deists,  (d.)  The  influ- 
ence of  the  French  infidels  collected  at  the  court  of  Frederick  the 
Great  of  Prussia.  The  father  of  critical  rationalism  was  Sem- 
ler,  Prof,  at  Halle  (b.  1725,  and  d.  1791).  Although  personally 
devout,  he  arbitrarily  examined  the  canonicity  of  the  books  of 
Scripture,  neglecting  historical  evidence,  and  substituting  his 
own  subjective  sense  of  fitness.  He  introduced  the  principle  of 
"  accommodation  "  into  Biblical  interpretation,  holding  that  be- 
sides much  positive  truth,  Christ  and  his  apostles  taught  many 
things  in  "accommodation"  to  the  ideas  prevailing  among 
their  contemporaries. — Hurst,  "History  of  Rationalism." 

This  tendency,  afterwards  greatly  aggravated  through  the 
influence  of  Lessing  and  Reimarus  the  Wolfenbuttel  Fragment- 
ist,  penetrated  the  mass  of  German  theological  literature,  and 
culminated  in  the  last  years  of  the  eighteenth  and  first  years 
of  the  nineteenth  century.  Among  its  principal  representa- 
tives were  Bretschneider,  Eichhorn,  and  Paulus  in  Biblical, 
and  Wegscheider  in  dogmatic  theology.  The  two  last  espe- 
cially, while  admitting  the  fact  that  Christianity  is  a  supernat- 
ural revelation,  yet  maintained  that  it  is  merely  a  republication 
of  the  elements  of  natural  religion,  and  that  Reason  is  the 
supreme  arbiter  as  to  what  books  are  to  be  received  as  ca- 
nonical, and  as  to  what  they  mean.  Miracles  were  regarded 
as  unworthy  of  belief.  The  narratives  of  miracles  recorded  in 
the  Scriptures  were  referred  to  the  ignorance,  superstition,  or 
partiality  of  the  writers,  and  the  miracles  themselves  were 
referred  to  natural  causes.  Jesus  was  regarded  as  a  good 
man,  and  original  Christianity  as  a  sort  of  philosophical  So- 
cinianism.  This  is  what  has  been  historically  designated  in 
Germany  by  the  title  nationalism,  and  more  specifically  as  the 
Rationalismus  Vulgaris,  the  old,  or  common-sense  Rationalism. 

After  the  rise  of  the  philosophies  of  Fichte,  Schelling  and 
Hegel,  a  new  impulse  was  given  to  theological  speculation, 
and  to  Biblical  interpretation.  This  gave  rise  on  the  one  hand 
to  a  reaction  towards  orthodoxy  through  the  "  Mediation  Theo- 
logy "  of  Schleiermacher,  and  on  the  other  to  a  new  school  of 
Transcendental  Rationalism,  the  basis  of  which  is  a  pantheistic 
mode  of  thought.  It  necessarily  denies  the  supernatural,  and 
postulates  the  fundamental  principle  that  miracles  are  impos 


58  THE    SOURCES    OF    THEOLOGY. 

sible.  This  school,  whose  head-quarters  was  Tubing-en,  has  been 
most  prominently  represented  by  Christian  Bam-  with  his  Ten- 
dency Theory,  Strauss  with  his  Mythical  theory,  and  Renan 
with  his  Legendary  theory,  to  account  for  the  origin  of  the 
New  Testament  writings,  while  denying  their  historical  basis 
of  fact. 

This  tendency,  in  various  degrees  of  force,  is  manifested  in 
the  state  of  theological  opinion  in  England  and  America,  prin- 
cipally in  the  School  of  Coleridge,  Maurice,  Stanley,  Jowett 
and  Williams,  and  the  Broad  Church  party  generally ;  in  Scot- 
land in  Tulloch ;  in  America  by  the  late  Theodore  Parker,  the 
school  of  liberal  Christians,  and  in  the  general  relaxation  of 
faith  discernible  on  every  side. 

"  German  Rationalism,"  Hagenbach,  Clarke  Edinburg  Li- 
braiy;  "History  of  German  Protestantism,"  Kahnis,  Clarke  Ed. 
Lib. ;  "  Critical  History  of  Free  Thought,"  A.  S.  Farrar,  New 
York,  D.  Appleton  &  Co.;  "Germany,  its  Universities,  Theo- 
logy, and  Religion,"  Philip  Schaff,  D.D. ;  "History  of  Rational- 
ism," President  Hurst,  C.  Scribner,  New  York. 

0.  Into  wJiat  tivo  classes  may  all  the  argumentative  grounds  of 
opposition  to  historical  Christianity  be  grouped? 

1st.  A  priori  grounds.  These  rest  upon  a  false  view  of  the 
being  and  nature  of  God,  and  of  his  relation  to  the  world. 
Thus  the  Positivist,  who  confines  man's  knowledge  to  Phe- 
nomena, and  their  laws  of  co-existence  and  sequence ;  the  Deist, 
who  denies  the  immanence  of  God  in  his  works,  and  denies  or 
renders  remote  and  obscure  his  relation  to  us  as  Moral  Governor, 
and  spiritual  Father;  and  the  Pantheist,  who  denies  his  person- 
ality; and  the  scientific  naturalist,  who  sees  in  nature  only  the 
operation  of  invariable  self-executing  physical  laws ; — must  all 
alike  deny  the  possibility  and  credibility  of  miracles,  must 
resolve  inspiration  into  genius,  and  in  some  way  or  other 
explain  away  the  Scriptures,  as  historical  records  of  fact.  This 
class  of  questions  has  been  discussed  above,  Chapter  II. 

2d.  Historical  and  Critical  grounds.  These  all  rest  on  the 
assumed  defect  in  the  historical  evidence  for  the  genuineness 
and  authenticity  of  the  several  books  of  the  canon,  and  in  the 
alleged  discrepancies,  and  historical  and  scientific  inaccuracies, 
found  in  Scripture.  This  class  of  questions  must  be  met  in  the 
departments  of  Biblical  Introduction,  and  Exegesis. 

7.  State  the  grounds  upon  which  it  is  evident  that  Reason  is 
not  the  ultimate  source  and  measure  of  religious  ideas. 

These  are  in  general  three:  (1.)  A  priori.     Reason,  consi'l- 


A    SUPERNATURAL    REVELATION  NECESSARY.  53 

ering  man's  present  condition  of  ignorance,  moral  degradation, 
and  guilt,  has  no  qualities  which  render  it  competent  to  attain 
either  (a)  certainty  or  (b)  sufficient  information  for  man's  prac- 
tical  guidance,  as  to  God's  existence,  or  character,  or  relation 
to  us,  or  purposes  with  regard  to  us.     (2.)  From  universal  ex- 

Eerience;  unassisted  reason  has  never  availed  for  these  ends, 
ut  when  unduly  relied  upon  has  always  led  men,  in  spite  of  a 
neglected  revelation,  to  skepticism  and  confusion.  (3.)  As  a 
matter  of  fact  an  infallible  record  of  a  supernatural  revelation 
has  been  given,  which  conveys,  when  interpreted  with  the  illu- 
minating assistance  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  information,  the  knowl- 
edge of  which  is  essential  to  salvation,  which  reason  could  by 
no  means  have  anticipated. 

To  establish  this  argument  the  following  points  must  be 
separately  established  in  their  order: 

1st.  A  supernatural  revelation  is  necessary  for  man  in  his 
present  condition. 

2d.  A  supernatural  revelation  is  possible  alike  d  'parte,  Dei 
and  d  parte  hominis. 

3d.  From  what  Natural  Theology  reveals  to  us  of  the  Attri- 
butes of  God,  of  his  relations  to  men,  and  of  our  moral  con- 
dition, a  supernatural  revelation  is  antecedently  probable. 

4th.  It  is  an  historical  fact  that  Christianity  is  such  a  super- 
natural revelation. 

5th.  It  is  also  an  historical  fact  that  the  present  Canon  of 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments  consist  only  of  and  contain  all 
the  extant  authentic  and  genuine  records  of  that  revelation. 

6th.  That  the  books  constituting  this  canon  were  super- 
naturally  inspired,  so  as  to  be  constituted  the  word  of  God, 
and  an  infallible  and  authoritative  rule  of  faith  and  practice 
for  men. 

8.  Prove  that  a  supernatural  revelation  is  necessary  for  men 
in  their  present  condition. 

1st  Keason  itself  teaches — (1)  that  as  a  matter  of  fact  man's 
moral  nature  is  disordered,  and  (2)  his  relations  to  God  dis- 
tux-bed  by  guilt  and  alienation.  Keason  is  capable  of  discov- 
ering the  fact  of  sin,  but  makes  no  suggestions  as  to  its  remedy. 
We  can  determine  a  priori  God's  determination  to  punish  sin, 
because  that  as  a  matter  of  Justice  rests  on  his  unchangeable 
and  necessary  nature,  but  can  so  determine  nothing  with  respect 
to  his  disposition  to  provide,  or  to  allow  a  remedy,  because  that, 
as  a  matter  of  grace,  rests  on  his  simple  volition. 

2d.  A  spontaneous  religious  yearning,  natural  and  universal, 
for  a  divine  self-revelation  and  intervention  on  the  part  of  God, 
and  manifest  in  all  human  history,  proves  its  necessity. 


60  THE    SOURCES    OF    THEOLOGY. 

3d.  Reason  has  never  in  the  case  of  any  historical  commu- 
nity availed  to  lead  men  to  certainty,  to  satisfy  their  wantg,  or 
to  rule  their  lives. 

4th.  Rationalism  is  strong  only  for  attack  and  destruction. 
It  has  never  availed  in  any  considerable  degree  in  the  way  of 
positive  construction.  No  two  prominent  Rationalists  agree  as 
to  what  the  positive  and  certain  results  of  the  teaching  of  rea- 
son are. 

9.  Prove  that  a  supernatural  revelation  is  possible  both  a  parte 
Dei,  and  a  parte  hominis. 

As  to  its  being  possible  on  God's  side,  if  Theism  be  true,  if 
God  be  an  infinite  extramundane  person,  who  yet  controls  the 
operation  of  the  laws  he  has  ordained  as  his  own  methods,  and 
has  subordinated  the  physical  system  to  the  higher  interests  of 
his  moral  government — then  obviously  to  limit  him  as  to  the 
manner,  character,  or  extent  of  his  self-manifestations  to  his 
creatures  is  transcendently  absurd.  All  the  philosophical  pre- 
sumptions, which  render  a  supernatural  revelation  on  the  part 
of  God  impossible,  are  based  on  Deistic,  Materialistic,  or  Pan- 
theistic principles.  We  have  exhibited  the  argument  for  The- 
ism in  Chapter  II. 

As  to  its  being  possible  on  man's  side,  it  has  been  argued 
by  modern  transcendental  rationalists  that  the  communication 
of  new  truth  by  means  of  a  "book  revelation"  is  impossible. 
That  words  are  conventional  signs  which  have  power  to  excite 
in  the  mind  only  those  ideas  which,  having  been  previously 
ipprehended,  have  been  conventionally  associated  with  those 
words. 

We  answer — 1st.  We  admit  that  simple  ultimate  ideas 
which  admit  of  no  analysis,  must  in  the  first  instance  be  appre- 
hended by  an  appropriate  organ  in  an  act  of  spontaneous  intu- 
ition. No  man  can  attain  the  idea  of  color  except  through  the 
act  of  his  own  eyes,  nor  the  idea  of  right  except  by  an  intuitive 
act  of  his  own  moral  sense.  But,  2d,  the  Christian  revelation 
involves  no  new  simple  ultimate  ideas  incapable  of  analysis. 
They  presuppose  and  involve  the  matter  of  all  such  natural 
intuitions,  and  they  excite  the  rational  and  moral  intuitions 
to  a  more  active  and  normal  exercise  by  association  with  new 
aspects  of  our  divine  relations,  but  for  the  most  part  they  nar- 
rate objective  and  concrete  facts,  they  explain  the  application 
of  intuitive  principles  to  our  actual  historical  condition  and 
relations ;  they  state  the  purposes,  requirements,  and  promises 
of  God.  But,  3d,  even  new  simple  ideas  may  be  excited  in  the 
mind  by  means  of  a  supernatural  inward  spiritual  illumination 
acting  on  the  minds  of  the  subject  of  religious  experience.    The 


A    SUPERNATURAL    REVELATION  PROBABLE.  61 

work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  accompanying  the  written  word  com- 
pletes the  revelation.  An  experienced  Christian,  under  the 
teaching  of  the  Holy  Spirit  through  the  word,  has  as  clear  and 
certain  a  knowledge  of  the  matter  involved  in  his  new  expe- 
rience, as  he  has  of  the  matter  of  his  perceptions  through  his 
bodily  senses. 

10.  Show  from  the  data  of  Natural  Theology  that  in  the  pres- 
ent state  of  human  nature  a  supernatural  revelation  is  antecedently 
probable. 

As  shown  in  Chapt.  II.,  Natural  Theology  ascertains  for  us 
an  infinite,  eternal,  wise,  and  absolutely  righteous  and  benevo- 
lent personal  God.  It  ascertains  also  that  man  created  in  the 
divine  image  is  morally  corrupt  and  judicially  condemned.  It 
reveals  to  us  man  needing  divine  help,  yearning  and  hoping 
for  it,  and  therefore  not  incapable  of  it,  as  are  the  finally  lost 
demons.  Therefore  all  the  perfections  of  God,  and  all  the  mis- 
eries of  men,  lead  to  the  rational  hope  that  at  some  time  and  in 
some  way  God  may  be  graciously  disposed  to  intervene  super- 
naturally  for  man's  help,  and  reveal  his  character  and  purposes 
more  fully  for  man's  guidance. 

11.  How  may  it  be  proved  that  it  is  an  historical  fact  that  Chris- 
tianity is  such  a  supernatural  revelation? 

The  reader  must  here  be  referred  to  the  many  and  excellent 
treatises  on  the  Evidences  of  Christianity. 

Paley's,  Chalmers',  Erskine's,  and  Alexander's  works  on  the 
Evidences;  A.  S.  Farrar's  "Critical  History  of  Free  Thought"; 
Hopkins's  "  Evidences  of  Christianity  " ;  Barnes's  "Evidences  of 
Christianity  in  the  Nineteenth  Century";  G.  Wardlaw's  "Lead- 
ing Evidences  of  Christianity";  Hetherington's  "Apologetics 
of  the  Christian  Faith "  ;  Leathes's  "  Grounds  of  Christian 
Hope";  Row's  "Supernatural  in  the  New  Testament";  Rogers's 
"  Superhuman  Origin  of  the  Bible "  ;  Christlieb's  "  Modern 
Doubt  and  Christian  Belief";  Rawlinson's  "Historical  Evi- 
dence of  the  Truth  of  the  Scripture  Records";  Wace's  "Chris- 
tianity and  Morality";  Titcomb's  "Cautions  for  Doubters"; 
Pearson's  "Prize  Essay  on  Infidelity";  F.  W.  Farrar's  "Wit- 
ness of  History  to  Christ." 

12.  Hoio  can  it  be  proved  that  tJte  accepted  Canon  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testament  consists  only  of,  and  contains  all  the  authentic 
and  genuine  records  of  the  Christian  Revelation  ? 

Here  also  the  reader  must  be  referred  to  the  best  treatises  on 
the  Canon  of  holy  Scriptures.  B.  F.  Westcott,  on  "  The  Canon  " 
and  on  "Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  Gospels";  Tischen- 


62  THE    LOURCES    OF    THEOLOGY. 

dorf,  "  When  were  our  Gospels  composed  ?  "  E.  Cone  Bissell, 
"  Historic  Origin  of  the  Bible " ;  Prof.  George  P.  Fisher,  "  The 
Supernatural  Origin  of  Christianity,"  and  "  The  Beginnings  of 
Christianity." 

13.  What  is  the  Nature  and  Extent  of  the  Inspiration  of  the 
Christian  Scriptures  ? 

See  below,  Chapter  IV. 

14.  What  is  tJie  legitimate  office  of  Reason  in  the  sphere  of 
Religion  ? 

1st.  Reason  is  the  primary  revelation  God  has  made  to 
man,  necessarily  presupposed  in  every  subsequent  revelation 
of  whatever  kind.  2d.  Hence  Reason,  including  the  moral 
and  emotional  nature,  and  experience,  must  be  the  organ  by 
means  of  which  alone  all  subsequent  revelations  can  be  appre- 
hended and  received.  A  revelation  addressed  to  the  irrational 
would  be  as  inconsequent  as  light  to  the  blind.  This  is  the  usus 
organicus  of  reason.  3d.  Hence  no  subsequent  revelation  can 
contradict  reason  acting  legitimately  within  its  own  sphere. 
For  then  (1)  God  would  contradict  himself,  and  (2)  faith  would 
be  impossible.  To  believe  is  to  assent  to  a  thing  as  true,  but 
to  see  that  it  contradicts  reason,  is  to  see  that  it  is  not  true. 
Hence  the  Reason  has  the  office  in  judging  the  Evidences  or 
in  interpreting  the  Records  of  a  supernatural  revelation,  of 
exercising  the  judicium  contradictionis.  Reason  has  therefore 
to  determine  two  questions:  1st.  Does  God  speak?  2d.  What 
does  God  say?  This,  however,  requires  (a)  the  co-operation 
of  all  the  faculties  of  knowing,  moral  as  well  as  purely  intellec- 
tual, (b)  a  modest  and  teachable  spirit,  (c)  perfect  candor  and 
loyalty  to  truth,  (d)  willingness  to  put  all  known  truth  to 
practice,  (e)  the  illumination  and  assistance  of  the  promised 
Spirit  of  truth. 

This  is  the  old  distinction  between  what  is  contrary  to 
reason,  and  what  is  above  it.  It  is  evident  that  it  is  the 
height  of  absurdity  for  reason  to  object  to  an  otherwise  ac- 
credited revelation  that  its  teaching  is  incomprehensible,  or 
that  it  involves  elements  apparently  irreconcilable  with  other 
truths.  Because — (1.)  This  presumes  that  human  reason  is  the 
highest  form  of  intelligence,  which  is  absurd.  (2.^  In  no  other 
department  do  men  limit  their  faith  by  their  ability  to  under- 
stand. What  do  men  of  science  understand  as  to  the  ultimate 
nature  of  atoms,  of  inertia,  of  gravity,  of  force,  of  life  ?  They 
are  every  moment  forced  to  assume  the  truth  of  the  impossible, 
and  acknowledge  the  inexplicability  of  the  certain. 

All  speculative  infidelity  springs  out  of  the  insane  pride  of 


RELATION   OF   PHILOSOPHY    TO    THEOLOGY.  83 

the  human  mind,  the  insatiate  rage  for  explanation,  and,  above 
all,  for  the  resolution  of  all  knowledge  to  apparent  logical 
unity.  |  Common  sense,  and  the  habit  of  reducing  opinions  to 
actual  practice,  leads  to  health  of  mind  and  body,  and  to 
religious  faith. 

15.    What  is  Philosophy,  and  ivhat  is  its  relation  to  Theology  ? 

Philosophy,  in  its  wide  sense,  embraces  all  human  knowl- 
edge, acquired  through  the  use  of  man's  natural  faculties,  and 
consists  of  that  knowledge  interpreted  and  sytematized  by 
the  reason.  Science  is  more  specific,  relating  to  some  special 
department  of  knowledge  thoroughly  reduced  to  system.  In 
later  days  the  word  Science  is  becoming  more  and  more  defi- 
nitely appropriated  to  the  knowledge  of  the  physical  phenomena 
of  the  universe.  In  this  sense  Science  has  for  its  task  the  de- 
termination of  phenomena  in  their  classifications  of  likeness 
and  unlikeness,  and  their  laws  or  order  of  co-existence  and 
succession,  and  does  not  inquire  into  substance,  or  cause,  of 
purpose,  etc.  Philosophy  is  presupposed,  therefore,  in  science 
as  the  first  and  most  general  knowledge.  It  inquires  into  the 
soul  and  the  laws  of  thought,  into  intuition  and  ultimate  truth, 
into  substance  and  real  being,  into  absolute  cause,  the  ultimate 
nature  of  force  and  will,  into  conscience  and  duty. 

As  to  its  relations  to  Theology  it  will  be  observed — 

1st.  The  first  principles  of  a  true  philosophy  are  presupposed 
in  all  theology,  natural  and  revealed. 

2d.  The  Holy  Scriptures,  although  not  designed  primarily 
to  teach  philosophy,  yet  necessarily  presuppose  and  involve  the 
fundamental  principles  of  a  true  philosophy.  Not  the  infer- 
ences of  these  principles  drawn  out  into  a  system,  but  the 
principles  themselves,  as  to  substance  and  cause,  as  to  con- 
science and  right,  etc. 

3d.  The  philosophy  prevalent  in  every  age  has  always  and 
will  necessarily  react  upon  the  interpretation  of  Scripture  and 
the  formation  of  theological  systems.  This  has  been  true  as  to 
the  early  Platonism,  and  the  Neo-Platonism  of  the  second  age; 
as  to  the  Aristotelian  philosophy  of  the  middle  ages ;  as  to  the 
systems  of  Des  Cartes  and  Leibnitz ;  of  Kant,  Fichte,  Schelling, 
and  Hegel  on  the  continent,  and  the  systems  of  Locke,  Reid, 
Coleridge,  etc.,  in  Britain. 

4th.  The  devout  believer,  however,  who  is  assured  that  the 
Bible  is  the  very  word  of  God,  can  never  allow  his  philosophy, 
derived  from  human  sources,  to  dominate  his  interpretation  of 
the  Bible,  but  will  sll-Ic  with  a  docile  spirit  and  with  the 
assistance  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  bring  his  own  philosophy  into 
perfect  harmony  with  that  which  is  implicitly  contained  in 


G4  THE    SOURCES    OF    THEOLOGY. 

the  word.  He  will,  by  all  means,  seek  to  realize  a  philosophy 
which  proves  itself  to  be  the  genuine  and  natural  handmaid  of 
the  religion  which  the  word  reveals. 

All  human  thought,  and  all  human  life,  is  one.  If  therefore 
God  speaks  for  any  purpose,  his  word  must  be  supreme,  and  in 
so  far  as  it  has  any  bearing  on  any  department  of  human 
opinion  or  action,  it  must  therein  be  received  as  the  most 
certain  informant  and  the  highest  Law. 

The  various  departments  of  Christian  Theology  have  been 
ennumerated  in  Chapter  L 


CHAPTER   IV. 

THE  INSPIRATION  OF  THE  BIBLE. 

Necessary  Presuppositions. 

1.  What  are  the  necessary  presuppositions,  as  to  principles,  and 
matters  of  fact,  which  must  be  admitted  before  tlie  possibility  of  in- 
spiration, or  the  inspiration  of  any  particular  book  can  be  affirmed  ? 

1st.  The  existence  of  a  personal  God,  possessing  the  attri- 
butes of  power,  intelligence,  and  moral  excellence  in  absolute 
perfection. 

2d.  That  in  his  relation  to  the  universe  he  is  at  once  imma- 
nent and  transcendant.  Above  all,  and  freely  acting  upon  all 
from  without.  Within  all,  and  acting  through  the  whole  and 
every  part  from  within,  in  the  exercise  of  all  his  perfections, 
and  according  to  the  laws  and  modes  of  action  he  has  estab- 
lished for  his  creatures,  sustaining  and  governing  them,  and  all 
their  actions. 

3d.  His  moral  government  over  mankind  and  other  intelli- 
gent creatures,  whereby  he  governs  them  by  truth  and  motives 
addressed  to  their  reason  and  will,  rewards  and  punishes  them 
according  to  their  moral  characters  and  actions,  and  benevo- 
lently educates  them  for  their  high  destiny  in  his  communion 
and  service. 

4th.  The  fact  that  mankind,  instead  of  advancing  along  a 
line  of  natural  development  from  a  lower  to  a  higher  moral 
condition,  have  fallen  from  their  original  state  and  relation, 
and  are  now  lost  in  a  condition  involving  conniption  and  guilt, 
and  incapable  of  recovery  without  supernatural  intervention. 

5th.  The  historical  integrity  of  the  Christian  Scriptures,  their 
veracity  as  history,  and  the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of  the 
several  books. 

6th.  The  truth  of  Christianity  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  set 
forth  in  the  sacred  record. 


G6  INSPIRATION. 

All  of  these  necessary  presuppositions,  the  truth  of  which  is 
involved  in  the  doctrine  that  the  Scriptures  are  inspired,  fe.M 
under  one  of  two  classes — 

(1.)  Those  which  rest  upon  intuition  and  the  moral  and  spir- 
itual evidences  of  divine  truth,  such  as  the  being  and  attributes 
of  God,  and  his  relations  to  world  and  to  mankind,  such  as  the 
testimony  of  conscience  and  the  moral  consciousness  of  men  as 
sinners  justly  condemned,  and  impotent. 

(2.)  Those  which  rest  upon  matters  of  fact,  depending  upon 
historical  and  critical  evidence  as  to  the  true  origin  and  con- 
tents of  the  sacred  books. 

If  any  of  these  priuciples  or  facts  are  doubted,  the  evidence 
substantiating  them  should  be  sought  in  their  appropriate 
sources,  e.  g.,  the  department  of  Apologetics — the  Theistic  ar- 
gument and  Natural  Theology,  the  evidences  of  Christianity, 
the  Historic  Origin  of  the  Scriptures,  the  Canon,  and  Criticism 
and  Exegesis  of  the  Sacred  Text. 


Statement  of  the  Church  Doctrine  op  Inspiration. 

2.  In  what  sense  and  to  ivliat  extent  has  the  Church  universally 
held  the  Bible  to  be  inspired  ? 

That  the  sacred  writers  were  so  influenced  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  that  their  writings  are  as  a  whole  and  in  every  part 
God's  word  to  us — an  authoritative  revelation  to  us  from  God, 
indorsed  by  him,  and  sent  to  us  as  a  rule  of  faith  and  practice, 
the  original  autographs  of  which  are  absolutely  infallible  when 
interpreted  in  the  sense  intended,  and  hence  are  clothed  with 
absolute  divine  authority. 

3.  What  is  meant  by  "plenary  inspiration"? 

A  divine  influence  full  and  sufficient  to  secure  its  end.  The 
end  in  this  case  secured  is  the  perfect  infallibility  of  the  Script- 
ures in  every  part,  as  a  record  of  fact  and  doctrine  both  in 
thought  and  verbal  expression.  So  that  although  they  come 
to  us  through  the  instrumentality  of  the  minds,  hearts,  imagi- 
nations, consciences,  and  wills  of  men,  they  are  nevertheless  in 
the  strictest  sense  the  word  of  God. 

4.  Wliat  is  meant  by  the  phrase  " verbal  inspiration"  and  how 
can  it  be  proved  that  the  words  of  the  Bible  were  inspired  ? 

It  is  meant  that  the  divine  influence,  of  whatever  kind  it 
may  have  been,  which  accompanied  the  sacred  writers  in  what 
they  wrote,  extends  to  their  expression  of  their  thoughts  in 
language,  as  well  as  to  the  thoughts  themselves.     The  effect 


11IE    CHURCH  DOCTRINE.  67 

being  that  in  the  original  autograph  copies  the  language  ex- 
presses the  thought  God  intended  to  convey  with  infallible 
accuracy,  so  that  the  words  as  well  as  the  thoughts  are  God's 
revelation  to  us. 

That  this  influence  did  extend  to  the  words  appears — 1st, 
from  the  veiy  design  of  inspiration,  which  is,  not  to  secure  the 
infallible  correctness  of  the  opinions  of  the  inspired  men  them- 
selves (Paul  and  Peter  differed,  Gal.  ii.  11,  and  sometimes  the 
prophet  knew  not  what  he  wrote),  but  to  secure  an  infallible 
record  of  the  truth.     But  a  record  consists  of  language. 

2d.  Men  think  in  words,  and  the  more  definitely  they  think 
the  more  are  their  thoughts  immediately  associated  with  an 
exactly  appropriate  verbal  expression.  Infallibility  of  thought 
can  not  be  secured  or  preserved  independently  of  an  infallible 
verbal  rendering. 

3d.  The  Scriptures  affirm  this  fact,  1  Cor.  ii.  13 ;  1  Thess.  ii.  13. 

•Uh.  The  New  Testament  writers,  while  quoting  from  the 
Old  Testament  for  purposes  of  argument,  often  base  their  argu- 
ment upon  the  very  words  used,  thus  ascribing  authority  to 
the  word  as  well  as  the  thought. — Matt.  xxii.  32,  and  Ex.  iii. 
6,  lo;  Matt.  xxii.  45,  and  Psalms  ex.  1;  Gal.  iii.  16,  and  Gen. 
xvii.  7. 

ft.  By  what  means  does  the  Church  hold  that  God  has  effected 
the  result  above  defined  ? 

The  Church  doctrine  recognizes  the  fact  that  every  part  of 
Scripture  is  at  once  a  product  of  God's  and  of  man's  agency. 
The  human  writers  have  produced  each  his  part  in  the  free  and 
natural  exercise  of  his  personal  faculties  under  his  historical 
conditions.  God  has  also  so  acted  concurrently  in  and  through 
them  that  the  whole  organism  of  Scripture  and  every  part  there- 
of is  his  word  to  us,  infallibly  true  in  the  sense  intended  and 
absolutely  authoritative. 

God's  agency  includes  the  three  following  elements: 
1st.  His  Providential  agency  in  producing  the  Scriptures. 
The  whole  course  of  redemption,  of  which  revelation  and  inspi- 
ration are  special  functions,  was  a  special  providence  directing 
the  evolution  of  a  specially  providential  history.  Here  the 
natural  and  the  supernatural  continually  interpenetrate.  But, 
as  is  of  necessity  the  case,  the  natural  was  always  the  rule  and 
the  supernatural  the  exception ;  yet  as  little  subject  to  accident, 
and  as  much  the  subject  of  rational  design  as  the  natural  itself. 
Thus  God  providentially  produced  the  very  man  for  the  precise 
occasion,  with  the  faculties,  qualities,  education,  and  gracious 
experience  needed  for  the  production  of  the  intended  writing. 
Moses,   David,   Isaiah,   Paul,   or  John,   genius  and   character. 


68  INSPIRATION. 

nature  and  grace,  peasant,  philosopher,  or  prince,  the  man, 
and  with  him  each  subtile  personal  accident,  was  providen- 
tially prepared  at  the  proper  moment  as  the  necessary  instru- 
mental precondition  of  the  work  to  be  done. 

2d.  Kevelation  of  truth  not  otherwise  attainable.  When- 
ever the  writer  was  not  possessed,  or  could  not  naturally 
become  possessed,  of  the  knowledge  God  intended  to  commu- 
nicate, it  was  supernaturally  revealed  to  him  by  vision  or 
language.  This  revelation  was  supernatural,  objective  to  the 
recipient,  and  assured  to  him  to  be  truth  of  divine  origin  by 
appropriate  evidence.  This  direct  revelation  applies  to  a  large 
element  of  the  sacred  Scriptures,  such  as  prophecies  of  future 
events,  the  peculiar  doctrines  of  Christianity,  the  promises  and 
threatenings  of  God's  word,  etc.,  but  it  applies  by  no  means  to 
all  the  contents  of  Scripture. 

3d.  Inspiration.  The  writers  were  the  subjects  of  a  plenary 
divine  influence,  called  inspiration,  which  acted  upon  and 
through  their  natural  faculties  in  all  they  wrote,  directing 
them  in  the  choice  of  subject  and  the  whole  course  of  thought 
and  verbal  expression,  so  as  while  not  interfering  with  the 
natural  exercise  of  their  faculties,  they  freely  and  spontane- 
ously produce  the  very  writing  which  God  designed,  and 
which  thus  possesses  the  attributes  of  infallibility  and  author- 
ity as  above  defined. 

This  inspiration  differs,  therefore,  from  revelation — (1.)  In 
that  it  was  a  constant  experience  of  the  sacred  writers  in  all 
they  wrote,  and  it  affects  the  equal  infallibility  of  all  the  ele- 
ments of  the  writings  they  produced.  While,  as  before  said, 
revelation  was  supernaturally  vouchsafed  only  when  it  was 
needed.  (2.)  In  that  revelation  communicated  objectively  to 
the  mind  of  the  writer  truth  otherwise  unknown.  While  In- 
spiration was  a  divine  influence  flowing  into  the  sacred  writer 
subjectively,  communicating  nothing,  but  guiding  their  facul- 
ties in  their  natural  exercise  to  the  producing  an  infallible 
record  of  the  matters  of  history,  doctrine,  prophecy,  etc.,  which 
God  designed  to  send  through  them  to  his  Church. 

It  differs  from  spiritual  illumination,  in  that  spiritual  illu- 
mination is  an  essential  element  in  the  sanctifying  work  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  common  to  all  true  Christians.  It  never  leads  to 
the  knowledge  of  new  truth,  but  only  to  the  personal  discern- 
ment of  the  spiritual  beauty  and  power  of  truth  already  re- 
vealed in  the  Scriptures. 

Inspiration  is  a  special  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  peculiar 
to  the  prophets  and  apostles,  and  attending  them  only  in  the 
exercise  of  their  functions  as  accredited  teachers.  Most  of 
them  were  the  subjects  both  of  inspiration  and  spiritual  illu- 


THE    STATEMENTS    OF  SCRIPTURE.  69 

mination.    Some,  as  Balaam,  being  unregenerate  were  inspired, 
though  destitute  of  spiritual  illumination. 

The  Proof  of  the  Church  Doctrine  of  Inspiration. 

6.  From  ivliat  sources  of  evidence  is  the  question  as  to  the  nature 
aiid  extent  of  the  Inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  to  be  determined  ? 

1st.  From  the  statements  of  the  Scriptures  themselves. 
2d.  From  the  phenomena  of  Scripture  when  critically  ex- 
amined. 

The  Statements  of  the  Scriptures  as  to  the  Nature  of  their  own 

Inspiration. 

7.  Hoio  can  tJie  propriety  of  proving  the  Inspiration  of  the 
Scriptures  from  their  own  assertions  be  vindicated  ? 

We  do  not  reason  in  a  circle  when  we  rest  the  truth  of  the 
inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  on  their  own  assertions.  We  come 
to  this  question  already  believing  in  their  credibility  as  histo- 
ries, and  in  that  of  their  writers  as  witnesses  of  facts,  and  in 
the  truth  of  Christianity  and  in  the  divinity  of  Christ.  What- 
ever Christ  affirms  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  whatever  he 
promises  to  the  Apostles,  and  whatever  they  assert  as  to  the 
divine  influence  acting  in  and  through  themselves,  or  as  to 
the  infallibility  and  authority  of  their  writings,  must  be  true. 
Especially  as  all  their  claims  were  indorsed  by  God  working 
with  them  by  signs  and  wonders  and  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
It  is  evident  that  if  their  claims  to  Inspiration  and  to  the  in- 
fallibility and  authority  of  their  writings  are  denied,  they  are 
consequently  charged  with  fanatical  presumption  and  gross 
misrepresentation,  and  the  validity  of  their  testimony  on  all 
points  is  denied.  When  plenary  inspiration  is  denied  all  Chris- 
tian faith  is  undermined. 

8.  How  may  the  Inspiration  of  tJw  apostles  be  fairly  inferred 
from  tJiefact  that  they  wrought  miracles? 

A  miracle  is  a  divine  sign  (dr^jneiov)  accrediting  the  person 
to  whom  the  power  is  delegated  as  a  divinely  commissioned 
agent,  Matt.  xvi.  1,  4;  Acts  xiv.  3;  Heb.  ii.  4  This  divine 
testimony  not  only  encourages,  but  absolutely  renders  belief 
obligatory.  Where  the  sign  is  God  commands  us  to  believe. 
But  he  could  not  unconditionally  command  us  to  believe  any 
other  than  unmixed  truth  infallibly  conveyed. 

9.  Hoio  may  it  be  shown  that  the  gift  of  Inspiration  was  pi*om« 
ised  to  the  apostles  ? 


70  INSPIRA  TION. 

Matt.  x.  19;  Luke  xii.  12;  John  xiv.  26;  xv.  26,  27;  xvi.  13; 
Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20;  John  xiii.  20. 

10.  In  what  several  ways  did  they  claim  to  have  possession  of 
the  Spirit? 

They  claimed — 

1st.  To  have  the  Spirit  in  fulfilment  of  the  promise  of  Christ, 
Acts  ii.  33;  iv.  8;  xiii.  2-4;  xv.  28;  xxi.  11;  1  Thes.  i.  5. 

2d.  To  speak  as  the  prophets  of  God. — 1  Cor.  iv.  1;  ix.  17; 
2  Cor.  v.  19;  1  Thes.  iv.  8. 

3d.  To  speak  with  plenary  authority. — 1  Cor.  ii.  13 ;  1  Thes. 
ii.  13;  1  John  iv.  6;  Gal.  i.  8,  9;  2  Cor.  xiii.  2,  3,  4.  They  class 
their  writings  on  a  level  with  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures. — 
2  Pet.  iii.  16;  1  Thes.  v.  27;  Col.  iv.  16;  Rev.  ii.  7.— Dr.  Hodge. 

11.  Hoiu  ivas  their  claim  confirmed  ? 

1st.  By  their  holy,  simple,  temperate,  yet  heroic  lives. 

2d.  By  the  holiness  of  the  doctrine  they  taught,  and  its 
spiritual  power,  as  attested  by  its  effect  upon  communities  and 
individuals. 

3d.  By  the  miracles  they  wrought. — Heb.  ii.  4;  Acts  xiv.  3; 
Mark  xvi.  20. 

4th.  All  these  testimonies  are  accredited  to  us  not  only  by 
their  own  writings,  but  also  by  the  uniform  testimony  of  the 
early  Christians,  their  contemporaries,  and  their  immediate 
successors. 

12.  Show  that  the  writers  of  the  Old  Testament  claim  to  be 
inspired. 

1st.  Moses  claimed  that  he  wrote  a  part  at  least  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch by  divine  command. —  Deut.  xxxi.  19-22;  xxxiv.  10; 
Num.  xvi.  28,  29.     David  claimed  it. — 2  Sam.  xxiii.  2. 

2d.  As  a  characteristic  fact,  the  Old  Testament  writers  speak 
not  in  their  own  name,  but  preface  their  messages  with,  "Thus 
saith  the  Lord,"  "The  mouth  of  the  Lord  hath  spoken  it,"  etc. — 
Jer.  ix.  12;  xiii.  13;  xxx.  4;  Isa.  viii.  1;  xxxiii.  10;  Mic.  iv. 
4;  Amos  iii.  1;  Deut.  xviii.  21,  22;  1  Kings  xxi.  28;  1  Chron. 
xvii.  3. — Dr.  Hodge. 

13.  How  was  their  claim  confirmed? 

1st.  Their  claim  was  confirmed  to  their  cotemporaries  by 
the  miracles  they  wrought,  by  the  fulfilment  of  many  of  their 
predictions  (Num.  xvi.  28,  29),  by  the  holiness  of  their  lives, 
the  moral  and  spiritual  perfection  of  their  doctrine,  and  the 
practical  adaptation  of  the  religious  system  they  revealed  to 
the  urgent  wants  of  men. 


THE    STATEMENTS    OF   SCRIPTURE.  71 

2d.  Their  claim  is  confirmed  to  us  principally — (1.)  By 
the  remarkable  fulfillment,  in  far  subsequent  ages,  of  many 
of  their  prophesies.  (2.)  By  the  evident  relation  of  the  sym- 
bolical religion  which  they  promulgated  to  the  facts  and  doc- 
trines of  Christianity,  proving  a  divine  preadjustment_  of  the 
type  to  the  antitype.  (3.)  By  the  indorsement  of  Christ  and 
his  apostles. 

14.  What  are  the  formulas  by  which  quotations  from  the  Old 
Testament  are  introduced  into  the  Neio,  and  how  do  these  forms 
of  expression  prove  the  inspiration  of  the  ancient  Scriptures  ? 

"The  Holy  Ghost  saith,"  Heb.  iii.  7.  "The  Holy  Ghost  this 
signifying,"  Heb.  ix.  8.  "  God  saith,"  Acts  ii.  17,  and  Isa.  xliv. 
3;  1  Cor.  ix.  9,  10,  and  Deut.  xxv.  4.  "The  Scriptures  saith," 
Kom.  iv.  3;  Gal.  iv.  30.  "It  is  written,"  Luke  xviii.  31;  xxi. 
22;  John  ii.  17;  xx.  31.  "The  Lord  by  the  mouth  of  his  ser- 
vant David  says,"  Acts  iv.  25,  and  Ps.  ii.  1,  2.  _  "The  Lord  liin- 
iteth  in  David  a  certain  day,  saying,"  Heb.  iv.  7;  Ps.  xcv.  7. 
"David  in  spirit  says,"  Matt.  xxii.  43,  and  Ps.  ex.  1. 

Thus  these  Old  Testament  writings  are  what  God  saith, 
what  God  saith  by  David,  etc.,  and  are  quoted  as  the  author- 
itative basis  for  conclusive  argumentation ;  therefore  they  must 
have  been  inspired. 

15.  How  may  the  Inspiration  of  the  Old  Testament  writers  be 
proved  by  tJie  express  declarations  of  the  Neiv  Testament  ? 

Luke  i.  70;  Heb.  i.  1 ;  2  Tim.  iii.  16 ;  1  Pet.  i.  10-12 ;  2  Pet.  i.  21. 

16.  What  is  the  argument  on  this  subject  drawn  from  the  manner 
in  which  Christ  and  his  apostles  argue  from  tlie  Old  Testament  as 
of  final  authority  ? 

Christ  constantly  quotes  the  Old  Testament,  Matt.  xxi.  13; 
xxii.  43.  He  declares  that  it  can  not  be  falsified,  John  vii.  23 ; 
x.  35 ;  that  the  whole  law  must  be  fulfilled,  Matt.  v.  18 ;  and  all 
things  also  foretold  concerning  himself  "in  Moses,  the  prophets, 
and  the  Psalms,"  Luke  xxiv.  44.  The  apostles  habitually  quote 
the  Old  Testament  in  the  same  manner,  "That  it  might  be  ful- 
filled which  was  written,"  is  with  them  a  characteristic  formula, 
Matt.  i.  22;  ii.  15,  17,  23;  John  xii.  38;  xv.  25;  etc.  They  all 
appeal  to  the  words  of  Scripture  as  of  final  authority.  This 
certainly  proves  infallibility 


72  INS  PI R  A  TION. 


The  Phenomena  of  Scripture  considered  as  Evidence  of  the  Naturb 
and  Extent  of  its  Inspiration. 

17.  WJiat  evidence  do  tJie  Phenomena  of  the  Scriptures  afford 
as  to  nature  and  extent  of  the  human  causes  conspiring  to  produce 
them? 

Every  part  of  Scripture  alike  bears  evidence  of  a  human 
origin.  The  writers  of  all  the  books  were  men,  and  the  process 
of  composition  through  which  they  originated  was  character- 
istically human.  The  personal  characteristics  of  thought  and 
feeling  of  these  writers  have  acted  spontaneously  in  their  lit- 
erary activity,  and  have  given  character  to  their  writings  in  a 
manner  precisely  similar  to  the  effect  of  character  upon  writing 
in  the  case  of  other  men.  They  wrote  from  human  impulses, 
on  special  occasions,  with  definite  design.  Each  views  his 
subject  from  an  individual  standpoint.  They  gather  their  ma- 
terial from  all  sources, — personal  experience  and  observation, 
ancient  documents,  and  contemporary  testimony.  They  ar- 
range their  material  with  reference  to  their  special  purpose, 
and  draw  inferences  from  principles  and  facts  according  to 
the  more  or  less  logical  habits  of  their  own  minds.  Their 
emotions  and  imaginations  are  spontaneously  exercised,  and 
flow  as  co-factors  with  their  reasoning  into  their  compositions. 
The  limitations  of  their  personal  knowledge  and  general  mental 
condition,  and  the  defects  of  their  habits  of  thought  and  style, 
are  as  obvious  in  their  writings  as  any  other  personal  charac- 
teristics. They  use  the  language  and  idiom  proper  to  their 
nation  and  class.  They  adopt  the  usus  loquendi  of  terms  cur- 
rent among  their  people,  without  committing  themselves  to 
the  philosophical  ideas  in  which  the  usage  originated.  Their 
mental  habits  and  methods  were  those  of  their  nation  and  gen- 
eration. They  were  for  the  most  part  Orientals,  and  hence 
their  writings  abound  with  metaphor  and  symbol;  and  al- 
though always  reliable  in  statement  as  far  as  required  for  their 
purpose,  they  never  aimed  at  the  definiteness  of  enumeration, 
or  chronological  or  circumstantial  narration,  which  character- 
izes the  statistics  of  modern  western  nations.  Like  all  purely 
literary  men  of  every  age,  they  describe  the  order  and  the  facts 
of  nature  according  to  their  appearances,  and  not  as  related  to 
their  abstract  law  or  cause. 

Some  of  these  facts  have,  by  many  careless  thinkers,  been 
supposed  to  be  inconsistent  with  the  asserted  fact  of  divine 
guidance.  But  it  is  evident,  upon  reflection,  that  if  God  is  to 
reveal  himself  at  all,  it  must  be  under  all  the  limits  of  human 
modes  of  thought  and  speech.    And  if  he  inspires  human  agents 


THE   PHENOMENA    OF  SCRIPTURE.  73 

to  communicate  his  revelation  in  writing,  he  must  use  them  in 
a  manner  consistent  with  their  nature  as  rational  and  sponta- 
neous agents.  And  it  is  evident  that  all  the  distinctions  be- 
tween the  different  degrees  of  perfection  in  human  knowledge, 
and  elegance  in  human  dialect  and  style,  are  nothing  when 
viewed  in  the  light  of  the  common  relations  of  man  to  God. 
He  obviously  could  as  well  reveal  himself  through  a  peasant 
as  through  a  philosopher;  and  all  the  better  when  the  per- 
sonal characteristics  of  the  peasant  were  providentially  and 
graciously  preadjusted  to  the  special  end  designed. 

18.  What  evidence  do  the  Phenomena  of  the  Scriptures  afford 
as  to  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  divine  agency  exercised  in  their 
production? 

1st.  Every  part  of  Scripture  affords  moral  and  spiritual  evi- 
dence of  its  divine  origin.  This  is,  of  course,  more  conspicuous 
in  some  portions  than  in  others.  There  are  transcendant  truths 
revealed,  a  perfect  morality,  an  unveiling  of  the  absolute  per- 
fections of  the  Godhead,  a  foresight  of  future  events,  a  heart- 
searching  and  rein -trying  knowledge  of  the  secrets  of  the 
human  soul,  a  light  informing  the  reason  and  an  authority 
binding  the  conscience,  a  practical  grasp  of  all  the  springs  of 
human  experience  and  life,  all  of  which  can  only  have  orig- 
inated in  a  divine  source.  These  are  characteristics  of  a  large 
portion  of  the  Scriptures,  and  of  the  Scriptures  alone  in  all  lit- 
erature, and  together  with  the  accompanying  witness  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  these  are  practically  the  evidences  upon  which  the 
faith  of  a  majority  of  believers  rests. 

2d.  But  another  characteristic  of  the  Scriptures,  taken  in 
connection  with  the  foregoing,  proves  incontestibly  their  divine 
origin  as  a  whole  and  in  every  part.  The  sacred  Scriptures  are 
an  organism,  that  is  an  whole  composed  of  many  parts,  the 
parts  all  differing  in  matter,  form,  and  structure  from  each 
other,  like  the  several  members  of  the  human  body,  yet  each 
adjusted  to  each  other  and  to  the  whole,  through  the  most 
intricate  and  delicate  correlations  mediating  a  common  end. 
Scripture  is  the  record  and  interpretation  of  redemption.  Ee- 
demption  is  a  work  which  God  has  prepared  and  wrought  out 
by  many  actions  in  succession  through  an  historical  process 
occupying  centuries.  A  supernatural  providence  has  flowed 
forward  evolving  a  system  of  divine  interventions,  accompanied 
and  interpreted  by  a  supernaturally  informed  and  guided  order 
of  prophets.  Each  writer  has  his  own  special  and  temporary 
occasion,  theme,  and  audience.  And  yet  each  contributed  to 
build  up  the  common  organism,  as  the  providential  history  has 
advanced,  each  special  writing  beyond  its  temporary  purpose 


74  INSPIRATION. 

taking  its  permanent  place  as  a  member  of  the  whole,  the 
gospel  fulfilling  the  law,  antitype  has  answered  to  type  and 
fulfilment  to  prophecy,  history  has  been  interpreted  by  doc- 
trine, and  doctrine  has  given  law  to  duty  and  to  life.  The 
more  minutely  the  contents  of  each  book  are  studied  in  the 
light  of  its  special  purpose,  the  more  wonderfully  various  and 
exact  will  its  articulations  in  the  general  system  and  ordered 
structure  of  the  whole  be  discovered  to  be.  This  is  the  highest 
conceivable  evidence  of  design,  which  in  the  present  case  is 
the  proof  of  a  divine  supernatural  influence  comprehending  the 
whole,  and  reaching  to  every  part,  through  sixteen  centuries, 
sixty-six  distinct  writings,  and  about  forty  co-operating  human 
agents.  Thus  the  divine  agency  in  the  genesis  of  every  part 
of  Scripture  is  as  clearly  and  certainly  determined  as  it  is  in 
the  older  genesis  of  the  heavens  and  the  earth. 

19.  What  is  the  objection  to  this  doctrine  drawn  from  the  free 
manner  in  which  the  Neiv  Testament  loriters  quote  those  of  the  Old 
Testament,  and  tJie  answer  to  that  objection  ? 

In  a  majority  of  instances  the  New  Testament  writers  quote 
those  of  the  Old  Testament  with  perfect  verbal  accuracy.  Some- 
times they  quote  the  Septuagint  version,  when  it  conforms  to  the 
Hebrew ;  at  others  they  substitute  a  new  version ;  and  at  other 
times  again  they  adhere  to  the  Septuagint,  when  it  differs  from 
the  Hebrew.  In  a  number  of  instances,  which  however  are 
comparatively  few,  their  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament 
are  made  very  freely,  and  in  apparent  accommodation  of  the 
literal  sense. 

Rationalistic  interpreters  have  argued  from  this  last  class 
of  quotations  that  it  is  impossible  that  both  the  Old  Testament 
writer  quoted  from,  and  the  New  Testament  writer  quoting, 
could  have  been  the  subjects  of  plenary  inspiration,  because, 
say  they,  if  the  ipsissima  verba  were  infallible  in  the  first  in- 
stance, an  infallible  writer  would  have  transferred  them  un- 
changed. But  surely  if  a  human  author  may  quote  himself 
freely,  changing  the  expression,  and  giving  a  new  turn  to 
his  thought  in  order  to  adapt  it  the  more  perspicuously  to  his 
present  purpose,  the  Holy  Spirit  may  take  the  same  liberty 
with  his  own.  The  same  Spirit  that  rendered  the  Old  Testa- 
ment writers  infallible  in  writing  only  pure  truth,  in  the  very 
form  that  suited  his  purpose  then,  has  rendered  the  New  Tes- 
tament writers  infallible  in  so  using  the  old  materials,  that 
while  they  elicit  a  new  sense,  they  teach  only  the  truth,  the 
very  truth  moreover  contemplated  in  the  mind  of  God  from 
the  beginning,  and  they  teach  it  with  divine  authority. — See 
Fairbairn's  "  Ilerm.  Manual,"  Part  III.     Each  instance  of  suet 


OBJECTIONS    ANSWERED.  75 

quotation  should  be  examined  in  detail,  as  Dr.  Fairbairn  has 
done. 

20.  What  objection  to  the  doctrine  of  Plenary  Inspiration  is 
drawn  from  the  alleged  fact  that  "Discrepancies"  exist  in  the 
Scriptural  Text?  and  how  is  this  objection  to  be  answered? 

It  is  objected  that  the  sacred  text  contains  numerous  state- 
ments which  are  inconsistent  with  other  statements  made  in 
some  part  of  Scripture  itself,  or  with  some  certainly  ascertained 
facts  of  history  or  of  science. 

It  is  obvious  that  such  a  state  of  facts,  even  if  it  could  be 
proved  to  exist,  would  not,  in  opposition  to  the  abundant  pos- 
itive evidence  above  adduced,  avail  to  disprove  the  claim  that 
the  Scriptures  are  to  some  extent  and  in  some  degree  the  pro- 
duct of  divine  inspiration.  The  force  of  the  objection  would 
depend  essentially  upon  the  number  and  character  of  the  in- 
stances of  discrepancy  actually  proved  to  exist,  and  would  bear 
not  upon  the  fact  of  Inspiration,  but  upon  its  nature  and  degree 
and  extent. 

The  fact  of  the  actual  existence  of  any  such  "discrepancies," 
it  is  evident,  can  be  determined  only  by  the  careful  examina- 
tion of  each  alleged  case  separately.  This  examination  belongs 
to  the  departments  of  Biblical  Criticism  and  Exegesis.  The 
following  considerations,  however,  are  evidently  well-grounded, 
and  sufficient  to  allay  all  apprehension  on  the  subject. 

1st.  The  Church  has  never  held  the  verbal  infallibility 
of  our  translations,  nor  the  perfect  accuracy  of  the  copies  of 
the  original  Hebrew  and  Greek  Scriptures  now  possessed  by 
us.  These  copies  confessedly  contain  many  "discrepancies" 
resulting  from  frequent  transcription.  It  is,  nevertheless,  the 
unanimous  testimony  of  Christian  scholars,  that  while  these 
variations  embarrass  the  interpretation  of  many  details,  they 
neither  involve  the  loss  nor  abate  the  evidence  of  a  single  es- 
sential fact  or  doctrine  of  Christianity.  And  it  is  moreover 
reassuring  to  know  that  believing  criticism,  by  the  discovery 
and  collation  of  more  ancient  and  accurate  copies,  is  con- 
stantly advancing  the  Church  to  the  possession  of  a  more  per- 
fect text  of  the  original  Scriptures  than  she  has  enjoyed  since 
the  apostolic  age. 

2d.  The  Church  has  asserted  absolute  infallibility  only  of 
the  original  autograph  copies  of  the  Scriptures  as  they  came 
from  the  hands  of  their  inspired  writers.  And  even  of  these 
she  has  not  asserted  infinite  knowledge,  but  only  absolute  in- 
fallibility in  stating  the  matters  designed  to  be  asserted.  A 
"  discrepancy,"  therefore,  in  the  sense  in  which  the  new  critics 
affirm  and  the  Church  denies  its  existence,  is  a  form  of  state* 


76  INSPIRATION. 

ment  existing  in  the  original  text  of  the  Hebrew  and  Greek 
Scriptures  evidently  designed  to  assert  as  true  that  which  is 
in  plain  irreconcilable  contradiction  to  other  statements  exist- 
ing in  some  other  portions  of  the  same  original  text  of  Script- 
ure, or  to  some  other  certainly  ascertained  element  of  human 
knowledge.  A  "discrepancy"  fulfilling  in  every  particular  this 
definition  must  be  proved  to  exist,  or  the  Church's  doctrine  of 
plenary  verbal  inspiration  remains  unaffected. 

3d.  It  is  beyond  question,  that,  in  the  light  of  all  that  the 
Scriptures  themselves  assert  or  disclose  as  to  the  nature  and 
the  extent  of  the  divine  influence  controlling  their  genesis,  and 
as  to  their  authority  over  man's  conscience  and  life  as  the  voice 
ii  God,  the  existence  of  any  such  "discrepancies"  as  above  de- 
fined is  a  violent  improbability.  Those  who  assert  the  exist- 
ence of  one  or  more  of  them  must  bring  them  out,  and  prove 
to  the  community  of  competent  judges,  that  all  the  elements 
of  the  above  definition  meet  in  each  alleged  instance,  not  prob- 
ably merely,  but  beyond  the  possibility  of  doubt.  The  onus 
jjrobandi  rests  exclusively  on  them. 

4th.  But  observe  that  this  is  for  them  a  very  difficult  task  to 
perform,  one  in  any  instance  indeed  hardly  possible.  For  to 
make  good  their  point  against  the  vast  presumptions  opposed 
to  it,  they  must  prove  over  and  over  again  in  the  case  of  each 
alleged  discrepancy  each  of  the  following  points:  (1.)  That 
the  alleged  discrepant  statement  certainly  occurred  in  the 
veritable  autograph  copy  of  the  inspired  writing  containing 
it.  (2.)  That  their  interpretation  of  the  statement,  which  oc- 
casions the  discrepancy,  is  the  only  possible  one,  the  one  it 
was  certainly  intended  to  bear.  The  difficulty  of  this  will  be 
apprehended  when  we  estimate  the  inherent  obscurity  of  an- 
cient narratives,  unchronological,  and  fragmentary,  with  a 
background  and  surroundings  of  almost  unrelieved  darkness. 
This  condition  of  things  which  so  often  puzzles  the  interpreter, 
and  prevents  the  apologist  from  proving  the  harmony  of  the 
narrative,  with  equal  force  baffles  all  the  ingenious  efforts  of 
the  rationalistic  critic  to  demonstrate  the  "  discrepancy."  Yet 
this  he  must  do,  or  the  presumption  will  remain  that  it  does 
not  exist.  (3.)  He  must  also  prove  that  the  facts  of  science  or 
of  history,  or  the  Scriptural  statements,  with  which  the  state- 
ment in  question  is  asserted  to  be  inconsistent,  are  real  facts 
or  real  parts  of  the  autograph  text  of  canonical  Scripture,  and 
that  the  sense  in  which  they  are  found  to  be  inconsistent  with 
the  statement  in  question  is  the  only  sense  they  can  rationally 
bear.  (4.")  When  the  reality  of  the  opposing  facts  or  statements 
is  determined,  and  their  true  interpretation  is  ascertained,  then 
it  must,  in  conclusion,  be  shown  not  only  that  they  appear  incon 


OBJECTIONS   ANSWERED.  77 

eistent,  nor  merely  that  their  reconciliation  is  impossible  in  our 
present  state  of  knowledge,  but  that  they  are  in  themselves 
essentially  incapable  of  being  reconciled. 

5th.  Finally  it  is  sufficient  for  the  present  purpose,  to  point 
to  the  fact  that  no  single  case  of  "  discrepancy,"  as  above  de- 
fined, has  been  so  proved  to  exist  as  to  secure  the  recognition 
of  the  community  of  believing  scholars.  Difficulties  in  inter- 
pretation and  apparently  irreconcilable  statements  exist,  but  no 
"discrepancy"  has  been  proved.  Advancing  knowledge  re- 
moves some  difficulties  and  discovers  others.  It  is  in  the  high- 
est degree  probable  that  perfect  knowledge  would  remove  all. 

21.  Explain  the  meaning  of  such  passages  as  1  Cor.  vii.  6  and 
12  and  40,  Rom.  iii.  5  and  vi.  19,  and  Gal.  iii.  15,  and  show  their 
'perfect  consistency  with  the  fact  of  the  plenary  inspiration  of  the 
whole  Bible. 

"  I  speak  as  a  man,"  is  a  phrase  occurring  frequently,  and  its 
sense  is  determined  by  the  context.  In  Romans  iii.  5,  it  signifies 
that  Paul  was,  for  argument's  sake,  using  the  language  common 
to  men ;  it  was  the  Jews'  opinion,  not  his  own.  In  Rom.  vi.  10, 
it  signifies  "in  a  manner  adapted  to  human  comprehension," 
and  in  Gal.  iii.  15,  it  signifies  "I  use  an  illustration  drawn  from 
human  affairs,"  etc. 

"I  speak  this  by  permission,  not  of  commandment." — 1  Cor. 
vii.  6,  refers  to  verse  ii.  Marriage  was  always  permitted,  but 
under  certain  circumstances  inexpedient. 

"And  unto  the  married  I  command,  yet  not  I  but  the  Lord." 
"  But  to  the  rest  speak  I,  not  the  Lord." — 1  Cor.  vii.  10  and  12. 
Reference  is  here  made  to  what  the  "  Lord,"  that  is  Christ,  taught 
in  person  while  on  earth.  The  distinction  is  made  between  what 
Christ  taught  while  on  earth,  and  what  Paul  teaches.  As  Paul 
puts  his  word  here  on  an  equal  basis  of  authority  with  Christ's 
word,  it  of  course  implies  that  Paul  claims  an  inspiration  which 
makes  his  word  equal  to  that  of  Christ  in  infallibility  and 
authority. 

"And  I  think  also  that  I  have  the  Spirit  of  God." — 1  Cor.  vii. 
40.  "J  think  (Soxti)  I  have,  is  only,  agreeably  to  Greek  usage, 
an  urbane  way  of  saying,  I  have  (comp.  Gal.  ii.  6,  1  Cor.  xii.  22). 
Paul  was  in  no  doubt  of  his  being  an  organ  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 
Hodge,  "  Com.  on  First  Corinthians." 

Defective  Statement  of  the  Doctrine. 

22.  State  what  is  meant  by  theological  writers  by  the  insmrar 
tion  "  of  superintendence"  "  of  elevation"  "  of  direction"  and  "  of 
suggestion.' 


78  INSPIRA  T/OAT. 

Certain  writers  on  this  subject,  confounding  the  distinction 
between  inspiration  and  revelation,  and  using  the  former  term 
to  express  the  whole  divine  influence  of  which  the  sacred  writers 
were  the  subjects,  first,  in  knowing  the  truth,  second,  in  writing 
it,  necessarily  distinguish  between  different  degrees  of  inspira- 
tion in  order  to  accommodate  their  theory  to  the  facts  of  the 
case.  Because,  first,  some  of  the  contents  of  Scripture  evidently 
might  be  known  without  supernatural  aid,  while  much  more 
as  evidently  could  not;  second,  the  different  writers  exercised 
their  natural  faculties,  and  carried  their  individual  peculiarities 
of  thought,  feeling,  and  manner  into  their  writings. 

By  the  "inspiration  of  superintendence,"  these  writers  meant 
precisely  what  we  have  above  given  as  the  definition  of  inspira- 
tion. By  the  "inspiration  of  elevation,"  they  meant  that  divine 
influence  which  exalted  their  natural  faculties  to  a  degree  of 
energy  otherwise  unattainable. 

By  the  "inspiration  of  direction,"  they  meant  that  divine  in- 
fluence which  guided  the  writers  in  the  selection  and  dispo- 
sition of  their  material. 

By  the  "inspiration  of  suggestion,"  they  meant  that  divine 
influence  which  directly  suggested  to  their  minds  new,  and 
otherwise  unattainable  truth. 

23.  What  objections  may  be  fairly  made  to  these  distinctions  ? 

1st.  These  distinctions  spring  from  a  prior  failure  to  distin- 
guish between  revelation  the  frequent,  and  inspiration  the  con- 
stant, phenomenon  presented  by  Scripture;  the  one  furnishing 
the  material  when  not  otherwise  attainable,  the  other  guiding 
the  writer  at  every  point,  (1)  in  securing  the  infallible  truth  of 
all  he  writes;  and  (2)  in  the  selection  and  distribution  of  his 
material. 

2d.  It  is  injurious  to  distinguish  between  different  degrees 
of  inspiration,  as  if  the  several  portions  of  the  Scriptures  were 
in  different  degrees  God's  word,  while  in  truth  the  whole  is 
equally  and  absolutely  so. 

False  Doctrines  op  Inspiration. 

24.  Wliat  Principles  necessarily  lead  to  the  denial  of  any  super- 
natural Inspiration? 

All  philosophical  principles  or  tendencies  of  thought  which 
exclude  the  distinction  between  the  natural  and  the  supernat- 
ural necessarily  lead  to  the  denial  of  Inspiration  in  the  sense 
affirmed  by  the  Church.  These  are,  for  example,  all  Panthe- 
istic, Materialistic,  and  Naturalistic  principles,  and  of  course 
Rationalistic  principles  in  all  their  forms. 


FALSE    DOCTRINES    OF.  79 

25.  In  ivhat  several  forms  has  the  doctrine  of  a  Partial  Inspi- 
ration of  the  Scriptures  been  held  ? 

1st.  It  has  been  maintained  that  certain  books  were  the 
subjects  of  plenary  inspiration,  while  others  were  produced 
witn  only  a  natural  providential  and  gracious  assistance  of 
God.  S.  T.  Coleridge  admittted  the  plenary  inspiration  of 
"the  law  and  the  prophets,  no  jot  or  tittle  of  which  can  pass 
unfulfilled,"  while  he  denied  it  of  the  rest  of  the  canon. 

2d.  Many  have  admitted  that  the  moral  and  spiritual  ele- 
ments of  the  Scriptures,  and  their  doctrines  as  far  as  these 
relate  to  the  nature  and  purposes  of  God  not  otherwise  ascer- 
tainable, are  products  of  inspiration,  but  deny  it  of  the  his- 
torical and  biographical  elements,  and  of  all  its  allusions  to 
scientific  facts  or  laws. 

3d.  Others  admit  that  the  inspiration  of  the  writers  con- 
trolled their  thoughts,  but  deny  that  it  extended  to  its  verbal 
expression. 

In  one,  or  in  all  of  these  senses,  different  men  have  held 
that  the  Scriptures  are  only  "partially"  inspired.  All  such 
deny  that  they  "are  the  word  of  God"  as  affirmed  by  the 
Scriptures  themselves  and  by  all  the  historical  Churches,  and 
admit  merely  that  they  "contain  the  word  of  God." 

26.  State  the  doctrine  of  Gracious  Inspiration. 

Coleridge,  in  his  "  Confessions  of  an  Inquiring  Spirit,"  Let- 
ter vii.,  holds  that  the  Scriptures,  except  the  Law  and  the 
Prophets,  were  produced  by  their  writers  assisted  by  "the 
highest  degree  of  that  grace  and  communion  with  the  Spirit 
which  the  Church  under  all  circumstances,  and  every  regen- 
erate member  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  is  permitted  to  hope 
and  instructed  to  pray  for."  This  is  the  doctrine  of  Maurice 
("Theological  Essays,"  p.  339)  and  virtually  that  of  Morell 
("  Philosophy  of  Religion,"  p.  186)  and  of  the  Quakers.  These 
admit  an  objective  supernatural  revelation,  and  that  this  is 
contained  in  the  Scriptures,  which  are  highly  useful,  and  in 
such  a  sense  an  authoritative  standard  of  faith  and  practice; 
that  no  pretended  revelation  which  is  inconsistent  with  Script- 
ure can  be  true,  and  that  they  are  a  judge  in  all  controversies 
between  Christians.  Nevertheless  they  hold  that  the  Script- 
ures are  only  "  a  secondary  rule,  subordinate  to  the  Spirit  from 
whom  they  have  all  their  excellency,"  which  Spirit  illumes 
every  man  in  the  world,  and  reveals  to  him  either  with,  or 
without  the  Scriptures,  if  they  are  unknown,  all  the  knowl- 
edge of  God  and  of  his  will  which  are  necessary  for  his  salva- 
tion and  guidance,  on  condition  of  his  rendering  a  constant 


80  INSPIRA  TION. 

obedience  to  that  light  as  thus  graciously  communicated  to 
him  and  to  all  men.  "Barclay's  Apology,  Theses  Theological," 
Propositions  i.,  ii.,  and  iii. 


Authoritative  Statements. 

Roman  Catholic. — "  Decrees  of  Council  of  Trent"  Sess.  iv.  "  Which 
gospel .  .  .  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  first  promulgated  with 
his  own  mouth,  and  then  commanded  to  be  preached  by  his  apostles  to 
every  creature,  .  .  .  and  seeing  clearly  that  this  truth  and  discipline  are 
contained  in  the  written  books,  and  the  unwritten  tradition,  which  received 
by  the  apostles  from  the  mouth  of  Christ  himself,  or  from  the  apostles 
themselves,  the  Holy  Ghost  dictating,  have  come  down  even  unto  us, 
transmitted  as  it  were  from  hand  to  hand :  [the  Synod]  following  the 
example  of  the  orthodox  Fathers,  receives  and  venerates  with  an  equal 
affection  of  piety  and  reverence,  all  the  books  both  of  the  Old  and  of  the 
New  Testament—seeing  God  is  the  author  of  both — as  also  the  said  tra- 
ditions, as  well  those  appertaining  to  faith  as  to  morals,  as  having  been 
dictated,  either  by  Christ's  own  word  of  mouth,  or  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  preserved  in  the  Catholic  Church  by  a  continuous  succession." 

"Dogmatic  Decrees  of  the  Vatican  Council,"  1870,  Sess.  iii.,  Ch.  ii. 
"Further  this  supernatural  revelation,  according  to  the  universal  belief 
of  the  Church,  declared  by  the  sacred  Synod  of  Trent,  is  contained  in 
the  written  books  and  unwritten  traditions  which  have  come  down  to  us, 
having  been  received  by  the  apostles  from  the  mouth  of  Christ  himself, 
or  from  the  apostles  themselves,  by  the  dictation  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
have  been  transmitted  as  it  were  from  hand  to  hand.  And  these  books 
of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  are  to  be  received  as  sacred  and  canon- 
ical, in  their  integrity,  with  all  their  parts,  as  they  are  enumerated  in 
the  decree  of  the  said  Council,  and  are  contained  in  the  ancient  Edition 
of  the  Vulgate.  These  the  Church  holds  to  be  sacred  and  canonical, 
not  because  having  been  carefully  composed  by  mere  human  industry, 
they  were  afterwards  approved  by  her  authority,  nor  merely  because 
they  contain  revelation  with  no  admixture  of  error ;  but  because,  having 
been  written  by  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  they  have  God  for 
their  author,  and  have  been  delivered  as  such  to  the  Church  herself. " 

Lutheran. — "Formula  Concordice  Epitome."  1.  "We  believe,  con- 
fess, and  teach  that  the  only  rule  and  norm,  according  to  which  all  dog- 
mas and  all  doctors  ought  to  be  esteemed  and  judged,  is  no  other 
whatever  than  the  prophetic  and  apostolic  writings  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testament,  as  it  is  written,  Ps.  cxix.  105,  and  Gal.  i.  8." 

Reformed. — "Second  Helvetic  Confession,"  Ch.  i.  Concerning  Holy 
Scripture.  "We  believe  and  confess,  that  the  canonical  Scriptures  of 
the  holy  prophets  and  apostles  of  each  Testament  are  the  true  word  of 
God,  and  that  they  possess  sufficient  authority  from  themselves  alone  and 
not  from  man.  For  God  himself  spoke  to  the  fathers,  to  the  prophets, 
and  to  the  apostles,  and  continues  to  speak  to  us  through  the  Holy 
Scriptures. " 

"  The  Belgic  Confession,"  Art.  iii.  "We  confess  that  this  word  of 
God  was  not  sent  nor  delivered  by  the  will  of  man,  but  that  holy  men  of 
God  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  the  apostle  Peter 
6aith.  And  that  afterwards  God,  from  a  special  care  which  he  has  for 
us  and  our  salvation,  commanded  his  servants,  the  prophets  and  apostles, 


CREED    STATEMENTS.  81 

to  commit  his  revealed  word  to  writing,  and  he  himself  wrote  with  hia 
own  finger  the  two  tables  of  the  law.  Therefore  we  call  such  writings 
holy  and  divine  Scriptures." 

"  Westminster  Confessioyi  of  Faith  "  Chap.  i.  "Therefore  it  pleased 
the  Lord,  at  sundry  times  and  in  divers  manners,  to  reveal  himself  and 
to  declare  his  will  unto  his  Church;  and  afterwards,  for  the  better  pre- 
serving and  propagating  of  the  truth,  and  for  the  more  sure  establish- 
ment and  comfort  of  the  Church  against  the  Corruption  of  the  flesh  and 
the  malice  of  Satan  and  of  the  world,  to  commit  the  same  wholly  unto 
writing."  "The  authority  of  the  Holy  Scripture,  for  which  it  ought  to 
be  believed  and  obeyed,  dependeth  not  upon  the  testimony  of  any  man 
or  church,  but  wholly  upon  God  (-who  is  truth  itself)  the  Author  thereof; 
and  therefore  it  is  to  be  received  because  it  is  the  word  of  God. " 


CHAPTER   V. 

THE  RULE  OF  FAITH  AND  PRACTICE. 

The  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  having  bees 
given  by  Inspiration  of  God,  are  the  all-sufficient  and  only  Rule 
of  Faith  and  Practice,  and  Judge  of  Controversies. 

(This  chapter  is  compiled  from  Dr.  Hodge's  unpublished 
"Lectures  on  the  Church.") 

1.  What  is  meant  by  saying  that  the  Scriptures  are  the  only 
infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice? 

Whatever  God  teaches  or  commands  is  of  sovereign  author- 
ity. Whatever  conveys  to  us  an  infallible  knowledge  of  his 
teachings  and  commands  is  an  infallible  rule.  The  Scriptures 
of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  are  the  only  organs  through 
which,  during  the  present  dispensation,  God  conveys  to  us  a 
knowledge  of  his  wall  about  what  we  are  to  believe  concerning 
himself,  and  what  duties  he  requires  of  us. 

2.  What  does  the  Romish  Church  declare  to  be  the  infallible  rule 
of  faith  ami  practice  ? 

The  Romish  theory  is  that  the  complete  rule  of  faith  and 
practice  consists  of  Scripture  and  tradition,  or  the  oral  teaching 
of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  handed  down  through  the  Church. 
Tradition  they  hold  to  be  necessary,  1st,  to  teach  additional 
truth  not  contained  in  the  Scriptures;  and,  2d,  to  interpret 
Scripture.  The  Church  being  the  divinely  constituted  depos- 
itory and  judge  of  both  Scripture  and  tradition. — "  Decrees  of 
Council  of  Trent,"  Session  IV,  and  "Dens  Theo.,"  Tom.  II.,  N 
80  and  81. 

3.  By  what  arguments  do  they  seek  to  establish  the  authority  of 
tradition?  By  wliat  criterion  do  they  distinguish  true  traditions 
from  false,  and  on  what  grounds  do  they  base  the  authority  of  tine 
traditions  they  receive? 

1st.  Their  arguments  in  behalf  of  tradition  are — (1.)  Script- 
ure authorizes  it,  2  Thess.  ii.  15;  iii.  6.     (2.)  The  early  fathers 


INVALIDITY   OF    TRADITION.  83 

asserted  its  authority  and  founded  their  faith  ^argely  upon  it 
(3.)  The  oral  teaching  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  when  clearly 
ascertained,  is  intrinsically  of  equal  authority  with  their  writ- 
ings. The  Scriptures  themselves  are  handed  down  to  us  by 
the  evidence  of  tradition,  and  the  stream  can  not  rise  higher 
than  its  source.  (4.)  The  necessity  of  the  case,  (a.)  Scripture 
is  obscure,  needs  tradition  as  its  interpreter,  (b.)  Scripture  is 
incomplete  as  a  rule  of  faith  and  practice ;  since  there  are  many 
doctrines  and  institutions,  universally  recognized,  which  are 
founded  only  upon  tradition  as  a  supplement  to  Scripture. 
(5.)  Analogy.  Every  state  recognizes  both  written  and  un- 
written, common  and  statute  law. 

2d.  The  criterion  by  which  they  distinguish  between  true 
and  false  traditions  is  Catholic  consent.  The  Anglican  ritual- 
ists confine  the  application  of  the  rule  to  the  first  three  or  four 
centuries.  The  Romanists  recognize  that  as  an  authoritative 
consent  which  is  constitutionally  expressed  by  the  bishops  in 
general  council,  or  by  the  Pope  ex-cathedra,  in  any  age  of  the 
church  whatever. 

3d.  They  defend  the  traditions  which  they  hold  to  be  true. 
(1.)  On  the  ground  of  historical  testimony,  tracing  them  up  to 
the  apostles  as  their  source.  (2.)  The  authority  of  the  Church 
3xpressed  by  Catholic  consent. 

4.  By  what  arguments  may  the  invalidity  of  all  ecclesiastical 
tradition,  as  apart  of  our  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  be  shoivn? 

1st.  The  Scriptures  do  not,  as  claimed,  ascribe  authority  to 
oral  tradition.  Tradition,  as  intended  by  Paul  in  the  passage 
cited  (2  Thess.  ii.  15,  and  iii.  6),  signifies  all  his  instructions, 
oral  and  written,  communicated  to  those  very  people  themselves, 
not  handed  down.  On  the  other  hand,  Christ  rebuked  this 
doctrine  of  the  Romanists  in  their  predecessors,  the  Pharisees, 
Matt.  xv.  3,  6 ;  Mark  vii.  7. 

2d.  It  is  improbable  a  priori  that  God  would  supplement 
Scrip'ture  with  tradition  as  part  of  our  rule  of  faith.  (1.)  Be- 
cause Scripture,  as  will  be  shown  below  (questions  7-14),  ia 
certain,  definite,  complete,  and  perspicuous.  (2.)  Because  tra- 
dition, from  its  very  nature,  is  indeterminate,  and  liable  to 
become  adulterated  with  every  form  of  error.  Besides,  as  will 
be  shown  below  (question  20),  the  authority  of  Scripture  does 
not  rest  ultimately  upon  tradition. 

3d.  The  whole  ground  upon  which  Romanists  base  the  au- 
thority of  their  traditions  (viz.,  history  and  church  authority) 
is  invalid.  (1.)  History  utterly  fails  them.  For  more  than 
three  hundred  years  after  the  apostles  they  have  very  little, 
and  that  contradictory,  evidence  for  any  one  of  their  tradition* 


84  THE    RULE    OF  FAITH  AND    PRACTICE. 

They  are  thus  forced  to  the  absurd  assumption  that  what  waa 
taught  iu  the  fourth  century  was  therefore  taught  in  the  third, 
and  therefore  in  the  first.  (2.)  The  church  is  not  infallible,  as 
will  be  shown  below  (question  18). 

4th.  Their  practice  is  inconsistent  with  their  own  principles 
Many  of  the  earliest  and  best  attested  traditions  they  do  not 
receive.  Many  of  their  pretended  traditions  are  recent  inven 
tions  unknown  to  the  ancients. 

5th.  Many  of  their  traditions,  such  as  relate  to  the  priest 
hood,  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass,  etc.,  are  plainly  in  direct  oppo 
sition  to  Scripture.     Yet  the  infallible  church  affirms  the  infal 
libility  of  Scripture.     A  house  divided  against  itself  can  not 
stand. 

5.  What  is  necessary  to  constitute  a  sole  and  infallible  rule  of 
faith  ? 

Plenary  inspiration,  completeness,  perspicuity,  and  acces- 
sibility. 

6.  What  arguments  do  tJie  Scriptures  themselves  afford  in  favor 
of  the  doctrine  that  they  are  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  ? 

1st.  The  Scriptures  always  speak  in  the  name  of  God,  and 
command  faith  and  obedience. 

2d.  Christ  and  his  apostles  always  refer  to  the  written  Script- 
ures, then  existing,  as  authority,  and  to  no  other  rule  of  faith 
whatsoever. — Luke  xvi.  29;  x.  26;  John  v.  39;  Rom.  iv.  3; 
2  Tim.  iii.  15. 

3d.  The  Bereans  are  commended  for  bringing  all  questions, 
even  apostolic  teaching,  to  this  test. — Acts  xvii.  11;  see  also 
Isa.  viii.  16. 

4th.  Christ  rebukes  the  Pharisees  for  adding  to  and  pervert- 
ing the  Scriptures. — Matt.  xv.  7-9;  Mark  vii.  5-8;  see  also 
Rev.  xxii.  18,  19,  and  Deut.  iv.  2 ;  xii.  32 ;  Josh.  i.  7. 

7.  In  ivhat  sense  is  the  completeness  of  Scripture  as  a  rule  of 
faith  asserted  ? 

It  is  not  meant  that  the  Scriptures  contain  every  revelation 
which  God  has  ever  made  to  man,  but  that  their  contents  are 
the  only  supernatural  revelation  that  God  does  now  make  to 
man,  and  that  this  revelation  is  abundantly  sufficient  for  man's 
guidance  in  all  questions  of  faith,  practice,  and  modes  of  wor- 
ship, and  excludes  the  necessity  and  the  right  of  any  human 
inventions. 

8.  How  may  this  completeness  be  proved  from  the  design  of 
Scripture  ? 


THE    SCRIPTURES   PERSPICUOUS.  85 

The  Scriptures  profess  to  lead  us  to  God.  Whatever  is 
necessary  to  that  end  they  must  teach  us.  If  any  supple- 
mentary rule,  as  tradition,  is  necessary  to  that  end,  they  must 
refer  us  to  it.  "Incompleteness  here  would  be  falsehood." 
But  while  one  sacred  writer  constantly  refers  us  to  the  writ- 
ings of  another,  not  one  of  them  ever  intimates  to  us  either 
the  necessity  or  the  existence  of  any  other  rule. — John  xx.  31 ; 
2  Tim.  iii.  15-17. 

9.  By  ivhat  other  arguments  may  this  principle  be  proved  ? 

As  the  Scriptures  profess  to  be  a  rule  complete  for  its  end, 
so  they  have  always  been  practically  found  to  be  such  by  the 
true  spiritual  people  of  God  in  all  ages.  They  teach  a  complete 
and  harmonious  system  of  doctrine.  They  furnish  all  necessary 
principles  for  the  government  of  the  private  lives  of  Christians, 
in  every  relation,  for  the  public  worship  of  God,  and  for  the 
administration  of  the  affairs  of  his  kingdom;  and  they  repel 
all  pretended  traditions  and  priestly  innovations. 

10.  In  what  sense  do  Protestants  affirm  and  Romanists  deny  the 
'perspicuity  of  Scripture  ? 

Protestants  do  not  affirm  that  the  doctrines  revealed  in  the 
Scriptures  are  level  to  man's  powers  of  understanding.  Many 
of  tnem  are  confessedly  beyond  all  understanding.  Nor  do 
they  affirm  that  every  part  of  Scripture  can  be  certainly  and 
perspicuously  expounded,  many  of  the  prophesies  being  per- 
fectly enigmatical  until  explained  by  the  event.  But  they  do 
affirm  that  every  essential  article  of  faith  and  rule  of  practice 
is  clearly  revealed  in  Scripture,  or  may  certainly  be  deduced 
therefrom.  This  much  the  least  instructed  Christian  may  learn 
at  once;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  true,  that  with  the 
advance  of  historical  and  critical  knowledge,  and  by  means 
of  controversies,  the  Christian  church  is  constantly  making 
progress  in  the  accurate  interpretation  of  Scripture,  and  in  the 
comprehension  in  its  integrity  of  the  system  therein  taught. 

Protestants  affirm  and  Romanists  deny  that  private  and 
unlearned  Christians  may  safely  be  allowed  to  interpret  Script- 
ure for  themselves. 

11.  Hoiv  can  the  perspicuity  of  Scripture  be  proved  from  tlue. 
fact  that  it  is  a  law  and  a  message  ? 

"We  saw  (question  8)  that  Scripture  is  either  complete  or 
false,  from  its  own  professed  design.  We  now  prove  its  per- 
spicuity upon  the  same  principle.  It  professes  to  be  (1)  a  law 
to  be  obeyed;  (2)  a  revelation  of  truth  to  be  believed,  to  be 
received  by  us  in  both  aspects  upon  the  penal tv  of  eternal 


86  THE    RULL     OF  FAITH  AND    PRACTICE. 

death.  To  suppose  it  not  to  be  perspicuous,  relatively  to  its 
design  of  commanding  and  teaching,  is  to  charge  God  with 
dealing  with  us  in  a  spirit  at  once  disingenuous  and  cruel. 

12.  In  ivhat  passages  is  their  perspicuity  asserted? 

Ps.  xix.  7,  8;  cxix.  105,  130;  2  Cor.  iii.  14  ;  2  Pet.  i.  18,  19; 
Hab.  ii.  2;  2  Tim.  iii.  15,  17. 

13.  By  what  other  arguments  may  this  point  be  established  ? 

1st.  The  Scriptures  are  addressed  immediately,  either  to  all 
men  promiscuously,  or  else  to  the  whole  body  of  believers  as 
such. — Deut.  vi.  4-9 ;  Luke  i.  3 ;  Rom.  i.  7 ;  1  Cor.  i.  2 ;  2  Cor.  i. 
1  ;  iv.  2  ;  Gal.  i.  2  ;  Eph.  i.  1 ;  Phil.  i.  1  ;  Col.  i.  2  ;  James  i.  1  ; 
1  Peter  i.  1 ;  2  Peter  i.  1 ;  1  John  ii.  12,  14;  Jude  i.  1 ;  Rev.  i.  3,  4; 
ii.  7.  The  only  exceptions  are  the  epistles  to  Timothy  and 
Titus. 

2d.  All  Christians  promiscuously  are  commanded  to  search 
the  Scriptures. — 2  Tim.  iii.  15,  17;  Acts  xvii.  11;  John  v.  39. 

3d.  Universal  experience.  We  have  the  same  evidence  of 
the  light-giving  power  of  Scripture  that  we  have  of  the  same 
property  in  the  sun.  The  argument  to  the  contrary  is  an  insult 
to  the  understanding  of  the  whole  world  of  Bible  readers. 

4th.  The  essential  unity  in  faith  and  practice,  in  spite  of 
all  circumstantial  differences,  of  all  Christian  communities  of 
every  age  and  nation,  who  draw  their  religion  directly  from 
the  open  Scriptures. 

14.  WJiat  loos  the  third  quality  required  to  constitute  the  Script- 
ures  the  sufficient  rule  of  faith  and  practice  ? 

Accessibility.  It  is  self-evident  that  this  is  the  pre-eminent 
characteristic  of  the  Scriptures,  in  contrast  to  tradition,  which 
is  in  the  custody  of  a  corporation  of  priests,  and  to  every  other 
pretended  rule  whatsoever.  The  agency  of  the  church  in  this 
matter  is  simply  to  give  all  currency  to  the  word  of  God. 

15.  What  is  meant  by  saying  that  the  Scriptures  are  the  judge 
as  tvell  as  tlue  ride  in  questions  of  faith  ? 

"  A  rule  is  a  standard  of  judgment;  a  judge  is  the  expounder 
and  applier  of  that  rule  to  the  decision  of  particular  cases." 
The  Protestant  doctrine  is — 

1st.  That  the  Scriptures  are  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith 
and  practice. 

2d.  (1.)  Negatively.  That  there  is  no  body  of  men  who  are 
either  qualified,  or  authorized,  to  interpret  the  Scriptures,  or 
to  apply  their  principles  to  the  decision  of  particular  ques- 
tions, in  a  sense  binding  upon  the  faith  of  their  fellow  Christians 


THE    ROMISH  DOCTRINE.  87 

(2.)  Positively.  That  Scripture  is  the  only  infallible  voice  in 
the  church,  and  is  to  be  interpreted,  in  its  own  light,  and  with 
the  gracious  help  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  is  promised  to  every 
Christian  (1  John  ii.  20-27),  by  each  individual  for  himself, 
with  the  assistance,  though  not  by  the  authority,  of  his  fellow 
Christians.  Creeds  and  confessions,  as  to  form,  bind  only  those 
who  voluntarily  profess  them,  and  as  to  matter,  they  bind  only 
so  far  as  they  affirm  truly  what  the  Bible  teaches,  and  because 
the  Bible  does  so  teach. 

16.  Wliat  is  the  Romish  doctrine  as  to  the  authority  of  the  church 
as  tJie  infallible  interpreter  of  the  rule  of  faith  and  the  authoritative 
judge  of  all  controversies  ? 

The  Komish  doctrine  is  that  the  church  is  absolutely  infal- 
lible in  all  matters  of  Christian  faith  and  practice,  and  the 
divinely  authorized  depository  and  interpreter  of  the  rule  of 
faith.  Her  office  is  not  to  convey  new  revelations  from  God  to 
man,  yet  her  inspiration  renders  her  infallible  in  disseminating 
and  interpreting  the  original  revelation  communicated  through 
the  apostles. 

The  church,  therefore,  authoritatively  determines — 1st.  What 
is  Scripture?  2d.  What  is  genuine  tradition?  3d.  What  is 
the  true  sense  of  Scripture  and  tradition,  and  what  is  the  true 
application  of  that  perfect  rule  to  every  particular  question  of 
belief  or  practice. 

This  authority  vests  in  the  pope,  when  acting  in  his  official 
capacity,  and  in  the  bishops  as  a  body ;  as  when  assembled  in 
general  council,  or  when  giving  universal  consent  to  a  decree 
of  pope  or  council. — "Decrees  of  Council  of  Trent,"  Session  iv. ; 
"Deus  Theo.,"  N.  80,  81,  84,  93,  94,  95,  96.  "Bellarmine,"  Lib. 
III.,  de  eccles.,  cap.  xiv.,  and  Lib.  II.,  de  council.,  cap.  ii. 

17.  By  ivhat  arguments  do  they  seek  to  establish  this  authority  ? 

1st.  The  promises  of  Christ,  given,  as  they  claim,  to  the 
apostles,  and  to  their  official  successor,  securing  their  infallibil- 
ity, and  consequent  authority. — Matt.  xvi.  18;  xviii.  18-20; 
Luke  xxiv.  47-49 ;  John  xvi.  13 ;  xx.  23. 

2d.  The  commission  given  to  the  church  as  the  teacher  of 
the  world. — Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20;  Luke  x.  16,  etc. 

3d.  The  church  is  declared  to  be  "  the  pillar  and  ground  of 
the  truth,"  and  it  is  affirmed  that  "  the  gates  of  hell  shall  never 
prevail  against  her." 

4th.  To  the  church  is  granted  power  to  bind  and  loose,  and 
he  that  will  not  hear  the  church  is  to  be  treated  as  a  heathen. 
Matt.  xvi.  19;  xviii.  15-18. 

5th.  The  church  is  commanded  to  discriminate   between 


88  THE    RULE    OF  FAITH  AND   PRACTICE. 

truth  and  error,  and  must  consequently  be  qualified  and  au- 
thorized to  do  so. — 2  Thessalonians  iii.  6;  Romans  xvi.  17; 
2  John  10. 

6th.  From  the  necessity  of  the  case,  men  need  and  crave  an 
ever-living,  visible,  and  cotemporaneous  infallible  Interpreter 
and  Judge. 

7th.  From  universal  analogy  every  community  among  men 
has  the  living  judge  as  well  as  the  written  law,  and  the  one 
would  be  of  no  value  without  the  other. 

8th.  This  power  is  necessary  to  secure  unity  and  univer- 
sality, which  all  acknowledge  to  be  essential  attributes  of  the 
true  church. 

18.  By  wliat  arguments  may  this  claim  of  the  Romish  church 
be  shown  to  be  utterly  baseless? 

1st.  A  claim  vesting  in  mortal  men  a  power  so  momentous 
can  be  established  only  by  the  most  clear  and  certain  evidence, 
and  the  failure  to  produce  such  converts  the  claim  into  a  treason 
at  once  against  God  and  the  human  race. 

2d.  Her  evidence  fails,  because  the  promises  of  Christ  to 
preserve  his  church  from  extinction  and  from  error  do  none 
of  them  go  the  length  of  pledging  infallibility.  The  utmost 
promised  is,  that  the  true  people  of  God  shall  never  perish  en- 
tirely from  the  earth,  or  be  left  to  apostatize  from  the  essentials 
of  the  faith. 

3d.  Her  evidence  fails,  because  these  promises  of  Christ  were 
addressed  not  to  the  officers  of  the  church  as  such,  but  to  the 
body  of  true  believers.  Compare  John  xx.  23  with  Luke  xxiv. 
33,  47,  48,  49,  and  1  John  ii.  20,  27. 

4th.  Her  evidence  fails,  because  the  church  to  which  the 
precious  promises  of  the  Scriptures  are  pledged  is  not  an  ex- 
ternal, visible  society,  the  authority  of  which  is  vested  in  the 
hands  of  a  perpetual  line  of  apostles.  For — (1.)  the  word  church 
(J-KH\ij6ia)  is  a  collective  term,  embracing  the  effectually  called 
(HXifroi)  or  regenerated. — Rom.  i.  7;  viii.  28;  1  Cor.  i.  2;  Jude  i. ; 
Rev.  xvii.  14;  also  Rom.  ix.  24;  1  Cor.  vii.  18-24;  Gal.  i  15;  2 
Tim.  i.  9;  Heb.  ix.  15;  1  Pet.  ii.  9;  v.  10;  Eph.  i.  18;  2  Pet.  i.  10. 
(2.)  The  attributes  ascribed  to  the  church  prove  it  to  consist 
alone  of  the  true,  spiritual  people  of  God  as  such. — Eph.  v.  27 ; 
1  Pet.  ii.  5;  John  x.  27;  Col.  l.  18,  24.  (3.)  The  epistles  are 
addressed  to  the  church,  and  in  their  salutations  explain  that 
phrase  as  equivalent  to  "the  called,"  "the  saints,"  "all  true 
worshippers  of  God;"  witness  the  salutations  of  1st  and  2d 
Corinthians,  Ephesians,  Colossians,  1st  and  2d  Peter  and  Jude 
The  same  attributes  are  ascribed  to  the  members  of  the  true 
church  as  such  throughout  the  body  of  the  Epistles. — 1  Cor.  i. 


ROMISH  DOCTRINE   REFUTED.  89 

30;  iii.  16;  vi.  11,  19;  Eph.  ii.  3-8,  and  19-22;  1  Thes.  v.  1,  5; 
2  Thes.  ii.  13;  Col.  i.  21;  ii.  10;  1  Pet.  ii.  9. 

5th.  The  inspired  apostles  have  had  no  successors.  (1.)  There 
is  no  evidence  that  they  had  such  in  the  New  Testament.  (2.) 
While  provision  was  made  for  the  regular  perpetuation  of  the 
offices  of  presbyter  and  deacon  (1  Tim.  iii.  1-13),  there  are 
no  directions  given  for  the  perpetuation  of  the  apostolate. 
(3.)  There  is  perfect  silence  concerning  the  continued  exist- 
ence of  any  apostles  in  the  church  in  the  writings  of  the  early 
centuries.  Both  the  name  and  the  thing  ceased.  (4.)  No  one 
ever  claiming  to  be  one  of  their  successors  have  possessed  the 
"signs  of  an  apostle." — 2  Cor.  xii.  12;  1  Cor.  ix.  1;  Gal.  i.  1, 12; 
Acts  i.  21,  22. 

6th.  This  claim,  as  it  rests  upon  the  authority  of  the  Pope, 
is  utterly  unscriptural,  because  the  Pope  is  not  known  to  Script- 
ure. As  it  rests  upon  the  authority  of  the  whole  body  of  the 
bishops,  expressed  in  their  general  consent,  it  is  unscriptural 
for  the  reasons  above  shown,  and  it  is,  moreover,  impracticable, 
since  their  universal  judgment  never  has  been  and  never  can 
be  impartially  collected  and  pronounced. 

7th.  There  can  be  no  infallibility  where  there  is  not  self- 
consistency.  But  as  a  matter  of  fact  the  Papal  church  has  not 
been  self-consistent  in  her  teaching.  (1.)  She  has  taught  dif- 
ferent doctrines  in  different  sections  and  ages.  (2.)  She  affirms 
the  infallibility  of  the  holy  Scriptures,  and  at  the  same  time 
teaches  a  system  plainly  and  radically  inconsistent  with  their 
manifest  sense;  witness  the  doctrines  of  the  priesthood,  the 
mass,  penance,  of  works,  and  of  Mary  worship.  Therefore 
the  Church  of  Rome  hides  the  Scriptures  from  the  people. 

8th.  If  this  Romish  system  be  true  then  genuine  spiritual  re- 
ligion ought  to  flourish  in  her  communion,  and  all  the  rest  of  the 
world  ought  to  be  a  moral  desert.  The  facts  are  notoriously 
the  reverse.  If,  therefore,  we  admit  that  the  Romish  system  is 
true,  we  subvert  one  of  the  principal  evidences  of  Christianity 
itself,  viz.,  the  self-evidencing  light  and  practical  power  of  true 
religion,  and  the  witness  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

19.  By  what  direct  arguments  may  tlvc  doctrine  that  the  Script- 
ures  are  the  final  judge  of  controversies  be  established? 

That  all  Christians  are  to  study  the  Scriptures  for  them- 
selves, and  that  in  all  questions  as  to  God's  revealed  will  the 
appeal  is  to  the  Scriptures  alone,  is  proved  by  the  following 
facts : 

1st.  Scripture  is  perspicuous,  see  above,  questions  11-13. 

2d.  Scripture  is  addressed  to  all  Christians  as  such,  see  above^ 
question  13. 


90  THE   RULE    OF  FAITH  AND   PRACTIC*.. 

3d.  All  Christians  are  commanded  to  search  the  Scripture^ 
and  by  them  to  judge  all  doctrines  and  all  professed  teachers. — i 
John  v.  39;  Acts  xvii.  11;  Gal.  L  8;  2  Cor.  iv.  2;  1  Thess.  v.  21; 
1  John  iv.  1,  2. 

4th.  The  promise  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  author  and  inter- 
preter of  Scripture,  is  to  all  Christians  as  such.  Compare  John 
xx.  23  with  Luke  xxiv.  47-49 ;  1  John  ii.  20,  27 ;  Rom.  viii.  9 ; 
1  Cor.  iii.  16,  17.  < 

5th.  Religion  is  essentially  a  personal  matter.  Each  Chris- 
tian must  know  and  believe  the  truth  explicitly  for  himself,  on 
the  direct  ground  of  its  own  moral  and  spiritual  evidence,  and 
not  on  the  mere  ground  of  blind  authority.  Otherwise  faith 
could  not  be  a  moral  act,  nor  could  it  "purify  the  heart."  Faith 
derives  its  sanctifying  power  from  the  truth  which  it  immedi- 
ately apprehends  on  its  own  experimental  evidence. — John 
xvii.  17,  19 ;  James  i.  18 ;  1  Pet.  i.  22. 

20.  Wliat  is  the  objection  which  the  Romanists  make  to  this  doc- 
trine, on  the  ground  that  tlve  church  is  our  only  autJwrity  for  believing 
that  the  ScHptures  are  the  word  of  God  ? 

Their  objection  is,  that  as  we  receive  the  Scriptures  as  the 
word  of  God  only  on  the  authoritative  testimony  of  the  church, 
our  faith  in  the  Scriptures  is  only  another  form  of  our  faith  in 
the  church,  and  the  authority  of  the  church,  being  the  founda- 
tion of  that  of  Scripture,  must  of  course  be  held  paramount. 

This  is  absurd,  for  two  reasons — 

1st.  The  assumed  fact  is  false.  The  evidence  upon  which  we 
receive  Scripture  as  the  word  of  God  is  not  the  authority  of  the 
church,  but — (1.)  God  did  speak  by  the  apostles  and  prophets, 
as  is  evident  (a)  from  the  nature  of  their  doctrine,  (6)  from  their 
miracles,  (c)  their  prophecies,  {d)  our  personal  experience  and 
observation  of  the  power  of  the  truth.  (2.)  These  very  wri tings 
which  we  possess  were  written  by  the  apostles,  etc.,  as  is  evident, 
(a)  from  internal  evidence,  {b)  from  historical  testimony  ren- 
dered by  all  competent  cotemporaneous  witnesses  in  the  church 
or  out  of  it. 

2d.  Even  if  the  fact  assumed  was  true,  viz.,  that  we  know 
the  Scriptures  to  be  from  God,  on  the  authority  of  the  church's 
testimony  alone,  the  conclusion  they  seek  to  deduce  from  it 
would  be  absurd.  The  witness  who  proves  the  identity  or  pri- 
mogeniture of  a  prince  does  not  thereby  acquire  a  right  to 
govern  the  kingdom,  or  even  to  interpret  the  will  of  the  prince. 

21.  How  is  the  argument  for  tJw  necessity  of  a  visible  judge, 
derived  from  the  diversities  of  sects  and  doctrines  among  Protestants, 
to  lie  answered? 


ROMISH    DOCTRINE    REFUTED.  91 

1st.  We  do  not  pretend  that  the  private  judgment  of  Pro- 
testants is  infallible,  but  only  that  when  exercised  in  an  humble, 
believing  spirit,  it  always  leads  to  a  competent  knowledge  of 
essential  truth. 

2d.  The  term  Protestant  is  simply  negative,  and  is  assumed 
by  many  infidels  who  protest  as  much  against  the  Scriptures 
as  they  do  against  Rome.  But  Bible  Protestants,  among  all 
their  circumstantial  differences,  are,  to  a  wonderful  degree, 
agreed  upon  the  essentials  of  faith  and  practice.  Witness  their 
hymns  and  devotional  literature. 

3d.  The  diversity  that  does  actually  exist  arises  from  failure 
in  applying  faithfully  the  Protestant  principles  for  which  we 
contend.  Men  do  not  simply  and  without  prejudice  take  their 
creed  from  the  Bible. 

4th.  The  Catholic  church,  in  her  last  and  most  authoritative 
utterance  through  the  Council  of  Trent,  has  proved  herself  a 
most  indefinite  judge.  Her  doctrinal  decisions  need  an  infal- 
lible interpreter  infinitely  more  than  the  Scriptures. 

22.  How  may  it  be  shown  that  the  Romanist  theory,  as  ivell  as 
the  Protestant,  necessarily  throivs  upon  the  people  the  obligation  of 
private  judgment  ? 

Is  there  a  God?  Has  he  revealed  himself?  Has  he  estab- 
lished a  church?  Is  that  church  an  infallible  teacher?  Is 
private  judgment  a  blind  leader?  Which  of  all  pretended 
churches  is  the  true  one  ?  Every  one  of  these  questions  evi- 
dently must  be  settled  in  the  private  judgment  of  the  inquirer, 
before  he  can,  rationally  or  irrationally,  give  up  his  private 
judgment  to  the  direction  of  the  self-asserting  church.  Thus 
of  necessity  Romanists  appeal  to  the  Scriptures  to  prove  that 
the  Scriptures  can  not  be  understood,  and  address  arguments  to 
the  private  judgment  of  men  to  prove  that  private  judgment  is 
incompetent;  thus  basing  an  argument  upon  that  which  it  is 
the  object  of  the  argument  to  prove  is  baseless. 

23.  How  may  it  be  proved  that  the  people  are  far  more  compe- 
tent to  discover  what  the  Bible  teaches  than  to  decide,  by  the  marlcs 
insisted  upon  by  the  Romanists,  which  is  the  true  church? 

The  Romanists,  of  necessity,  set  forth  certain  marks  by 
which  the  true  church  is  to  be  discriminated  from  all  counter- 
feits. These  are  (1.)  Unity  (through  subjection  to  one  visible 
head,  the  Pope);  (2.)  Holiness;  (3.)  Catholicity;  (4.)  Apostol- 
kiity,  (involving  an  uninterrupted  succession  from  the  apostles 
of  canonically  ordained  bishops.) — "Cat.  of  Council  of  Trent," 
Part  I.,  Cap.  10.  Now,  the  comprehension  and  intelligent  appli- 
cation of  these  marks  involve  a  great  amount  of  learning  and 


02  THE    RULE    OF  FAITH  AND    PRACTICE. 

intelligent  capacity  upon  the  part  of  the  inquirer.  He  might  aa 
easily  prove  himself  to  be  descended  from  Noah  by  an  unbro- 
ken series  of  legitimate  marriages,  as  establish  the  right  of  Home 
to  the  last  mark.  Yet  he  can  not  rationally  give  up  the  right 
of  studying  the  Bible  for  himself  until  that  point  is  made  clear. 
Surely  the  Scriptures,  with  their  self-evidencing  spiritual 
power,  make  less  exhaustive  demands  upon  the  resources  of 
private  judgment. 

Roman  Catholic  Doctrine  as  to  the  Private  Interpretation  of 
Scripture,  and  as  to  Tradition,  and  as  to  the  Infallibility  op 
the  Pope. 

1st.  As  to  the  Interpretation  op  Scripture. — "Decrees  of  Council  of 
Trent,"  Sess.  iv. — "Moreover  the  same  sacred  and  holy  Synod  .  .  . 
ordains  and  declares,  that  the  said  old  and  viilgate  edition,  which,  by 
the  lengthened  usage  of  so  many  ages,  has  been  approved  of  in  the 
Church,  be,  in  public  lectures,  disputations,  sermons,  and  expositions, 
held  as  authentic;  and  that  no  one  is  to  dare  or  presume  to  reject  it 
under  any  pretest  whatever. 

"Furthermore,  in  order  to  restrain  petulant  spirits,  it  decrees  that 
no  one,  relying  on  his  own  skill,  shall,  in  matters  of  faith  and  of  morals 
pertaining  to  the  edification  of  Christian  doctrine, — wresting  the  sacred 
Scripture  to  his  own  senses,  presume  to  interpret  the  said  sacred  Script- 
ure contrary  to  that  sense  which  holy  mother  Church — whose  it  is  to 
judge  of  the  true  sense  and  interpretation  of  the  Holy  Scriptures — hath 
held  and  doth  hold;  or  even  contrary  to  the  unanimous  consent  of  the 
Fathers;  even  though  such  interpretations  were  never  (intended)  to  be 
at  any  time  published." 

"Dogmatic  Decrees  of  the  Vatican  Council,"  ch.  ii. — "And  as  the  things 
which  the  holy  Synod  of  Trent  decreed  for  the  good  of  souls  concern- 
ing the  interpretation  of  Divine  Scripture,  in  order  to  curb  rebellious 
spirits,  have  been  wrongly  explained  by  some,  we,  renewing  the  said 
decree,  declare  this  to  be  their  sense,  that,  in  matters  of  faith  and  morals, 
appertaining  to  the  building  up  of  Christian  doctrine,  that  is  to  be  held 
as  the  true  sense  of  Holy  Scripture  which  our  holy  mother  Church  hath 
held  and  holds,  to  whom  it  belongs  to  judge  of  the  true  sense  of  the 
Holy  Scripture;  and  therefore  that  it  is  permitted  to  no  one  to  interpret 
the  sacred  Scripture  contrary  to  this  sense,  nor,  likewise  contrary  to  the 
unanimous  consent  of  the  Fathers." 

2d.  As  to  Tradition. — "Prof.  Fidei  Tridentince"  (a,  d.  1564)  ii.  and  iii. 
"I  most  steadfastly  admit  and  embrace  apostolic  and  ecclesiastic  tradi- 
tions, and  all  other  observances  and  constitutions  of  the  same  Church. 
I  also  admit  the  Holy  Scriptures,  according  to  that  sense  which  our  holy 
mother  Church  has  held  and  does  hold,  to  which  it  belongs  to  judge  of 
the  true  sense  and  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures;  neither  will  I  ever 
take  and  interpret  them  otherwise  than  according  to  the  unanimous 
consent  of  the  Fathers." 

"  Council  of  Trent,"  Sess.  iv. — "And  seeing  clearly  that  this  truth  and 
discipline  are  contained  in  the  written  books,  and  the  unwritten  tradi- 
tions which,  received  by  the  apostles  from  the  mouth  of  Christ  himself, 
or  from  the  apostles  themselves  the  Holy  Ghost  dictating,  have  come 
down  even  unto  us  transmitted  as  it  were  from  hand  to  hand." 

3d.  As  to  the  absolute  Authority  op  the  Pope. — "Dogmatic  Deci- 


DECREES    OF   THE    VATICAN   COUNCIL.  93 

tions  of  the  Vatican  Council"  chap.  iii. — "  Hence  we  teach  and  declare  thai 
by  the  appointment  of  our  Lord  .  .  the  power  of  jurisdiction  of  the 
Roman  Pontiff  is  immediate,  to  which  all,  of  whatever  rite  and  dignity, 
both  pastors  and  faithful,  both  individually  and  collectively,  are  bound, 
by  their  duty  of  hierarchical  subordination  and  true  obedience,  to  submit 
not  only  in  matters  which  belong  to  faith  and  morals,  but  also  in  those 
that  appertain  to  the  discipline  and  government  of  the  Church  throughout 
the  world.  .  .  We  further  teach  and  declare  that  he  is  the  supreme 
judge  of  the  faithful,  and  that  in  all  causes,  the  decision  of  which  belongs 
to  the  Church,  recourse  may  be  had  to  his  tribunal,  and  that  none  may 
reopen  the  judgment  of  the  Apostolic  See,  than  whose  authority  there  is 
no  greater,  nor  can  any  lawfully  review  his  judgment.  Wherefore  they 
err  from  the  right  course  who  assert  that  it  is  lawful  to  appeal  from 
the  judgments  of  the  Roman  Pontiff  to  an  oecumenical  council,  as  to 
an  authority  higher  than  that  of  the  Roman  Pontiff." 

4th.  Concerning  the  absolute  Infallibility,  of  the  Pope  as  the 
Teacher  of  the  Universal  Church. — "Dogmatic  Decrees  of  the  Vatican 
Council,"  Chap.  iv.  — "  Therefore  faithfully  adhering  to  the  tradition 
received  from  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  faith,  for  the  glory  of  God 
our  Saviour,  the  exaltation  of  the  Catholic  religion,  and  the  salvation  of 
Christian  people,  the  sacred  Council  approving,  we  teach  and  define  that 
it  is  a  dogma  divinely  revealed:  That  the  Roman  Pontiff  when  he  speaks 
ex  cathedra,  that  is,  when  in  discharge  of  the  office  of  pastor  and  doctor 
of  all  Christians,  by  virtue  of  his  supreme  Apostolic  authority,  he  defines 
a  doctrine  regarding  faith  or  morals  to  be  held  by  the  universal  Church, 
by  the  divine  assistance  promised  to  him  in  blessed  Peter,  is  possessed 
of  the  infallibility  with  which  the  divine  Redeemer  willed  that  his  Church 
should  be  endowed  for  defining  doctrine  according  to  faith  and  morals; 
and  that  therefore  such  definitions  of  the  Roman  Pontiff  are  irreformable 
of  themselves,  and  not  from  the  consent  of  the  Church.  But  if  any  ono 
— which  may  God  avert — presume  to  contradict  this  our  definition:  let 
him  be  anathema." 

Cardinal  Manning  in  his  "Vatican  Council"  says,  "In  this  definition 
there  are  six  points  to  be  noted : 

"1st.  It  defines  the  meaning  of  the  well-known  phrase  loquens  ex 
cathedra;  that  is,  speaking  from  the  Seat,  or  place,  or  with  the  authority 
of  the  supreme  teacher  of  all  Christians,  and  binding  the  assent  of  the 
universal  Church. 

"2d.  The  subject  matter  of  the  infallible  teaching,  namely,  the  doc- 
trine of  faith  and  morals. 

"3d.  The  efficient  cause  of  infallibility,  that  is,  the  divine  assistance 
promised  to  Peter,  and  in  Peter  to  his  successors. 

"4th.  The  act  to  which  this  divine  assistance  is  attached,  the  defining 
of  doctrines  of  faith  and  morals. 

"5th.  The  extension  of  this  infallible  authority  to  the  limits  of  the 
doctrinal  office  of  the  Church. 

"  6th.  The  dogmatic  value  of  the  definitions  ex  cathedra,  namely  that 
they  are  in  themselves  irreformable,  because  in  themselves  infallible,  and 
not  because  the  Church,  or  any  part  or  member  of  the  Church,  should 
assent  to  them." 

"Dogmatic Decrees  of  Vatican  Council,"  Ch.  iv. — "For  the  Holy  Spirit 
was  not  promised  to  the  successors  of  Peter,  that  by  his  revelation  they 
might  make  known  new  doctrine;  but  that  by  his  assistance  they  might 
inviolably  keep  and  faithfully  expound  the  revelation  or  deposit  of  faith 
delivered,  through  the  Apostles." 


CHAPTER   VI. 

A  COMPARISON  OF  SYSTEMS. 

In  this  chapter  will  be  presented  a  brief  sketch  of  the  main 
contrasting  positions  of  the  three  rival  systems  of  Pelagianism, 
Semipelagianism,  and  Augustinianism,  or  as  they  are  denomin- 
ited  in  their  more  completely  developed  forms,  Socinianism, 
Arminianism,  and  Calvinism — together  with  an  outline  of  the 
history  of  their  rise  and  dissemination. 

1.  What,  in  general,  loas  tJie  state  of  Theological  thought  during 
tlie  first  three  centuries  ? 

During  the  first  three  hundred  years  which  elapsed  after 
the  death  of  the  apostle  John  the  speculative  minds  of  the 
church  were  principally  engaged  in  defending  the  truth  of 
Christianity  against  unbelievers — in  combating  the  Gnostic 
heresies  generated  by  the  leaven  of  Oriental  philosophy — and 
in  settling  definitely  the  questions  which  were  evolved  in  the 
controversies  concerning  the  Persons  of  the  Trinity.  It  does 
not  appear  that  any  definite  and  consistent  statements  were 
made  in  that  age,  as  to  the  origin,  nature,  and  consequences 
of  human  sin ;  nor  as  to  the  nature  and  effects  of  divine  grace ; 
nor  of  the  nature  of  the  redemptive  work  of  Christ,  or  of  the 
method  of  its  application  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  of  its  appropri- 
ation by  faith.  As  a  general  fact  it  may  be  stated,  that,  as  a 
result  of  the  great  influence  of  Origen,  the  Fathers  of  the  Greek 
Church  pretty  unanimously  settled  down  upon  a  loose  Semi- 
pelagianism, denying  the  guilt  of  original  sin,  and  maintaining 
the  ability  of  the  sinner  to  predispose  himself  for,  and  to  co- 
operate with  divine  grace.  And  this  has  continued  the  char- 
acter of  the  Greek  Anthropology  to  the  present  day.  The 
same  attributes  characterized  the  speculations  of  the  earliest 
writers  of  the  Western  Church  also,  but  during  the  third  and 
fourth  centuries  there  appeared  a  marked  tendency  among  the 
Latin  Fathers  to  those  more  correct  views  afterwards  trium- 
phantly vindicated  by  the  great  Augustine.  This  tendency 
may  be  traced  most  clearly  in  the  writings  of  Tertullian  of 
Cartilage,  who  died  circum.  220,  and  Hilary  of  Poictiers  (f368) 
and  Ambrose  of  Milan  (f3'J7). 


THE    THREE    SYSTEMS    OF    THEOLOGY.  95 

2.  By  ivhat  means  has  the  Church  made  advances  in  the  clear 
discrimination  of  divine  truth?  And  in  ivhat  ages,  and  among 
what  branches  of  the  Church,  have  the  great  doctrines  of  the  Trinity 
and  Person  of  Christ,  of  sin  and  grace,  and  of  redemption  and  tJie 
application  thereof  been  severally  defined? 

The  Church  has  always  advanced  toward  clearer  concep- 
tions and  more  accurate  definitions  of  divine  truth  through  a 
process  of  active  controversy.  And  it  has  pleased  Providence 
that  the  several  great  departments  of  the  system  revealed  in 
the  inspired  Scriptures  should  have  been  most  thoroughly  dis- 
cussed, and  clearly  defined  in  different  ages,  and  in  the  bosom 
of  different  nations. 

Thus  the  profound  questions  involved  in  the  departments 
of  Theology  proper  and  of  Christology  were  investigated  by 
men  chiefly  of  Greek  origin,  and  they  were  authoritatively  de- 
fined in  Synods  held  in  the  Eastern  half  of  the  General  Church 
during  the  fourth  and  immediately  following  centuries.     As 
concerns  Theology  the  consubstantial  divinity  of  Christ  was  ^f 
defined  in  the  Council  of  Nice,  325,  and  the  Personality  and 
divinity  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  first  Council  of  Constantino-   *- — 
pie,  381 ;  the  Filioque  clause  being  added  by  the  Latins  at  the 
Council  of  Toledo,  589.     As  concerns  Christology.     The  Council 
of  Ephesus,  431,  asserted  the  personal  unity  of  the  Theanthropos. 
The  Council  of  Chalcedon,  451,  asserted  that  the  two  natures 
remain   distinct.     The  sixth  Council   of  Constantinople,   680,     ,x 
asserted  that  the  Lord  possessed  a  human  as  well  as  a  divine     V 
will.    These  decisions  have  been  accepted  by  the  whole  Church, 
Greek  and  Roman,  Lutheran  and  Reformed. 

The  questions  concerning  sin  and  grace  embraced  under 
the  general  head  of  Anthropology  were  in  the  first  instance 
most  thoroughly  investigated  by  men   of  Latin  origin,  and     \f 
definite  conclusions  were  first  reached  in  the  controversy  of 
Augustine  with  Pelagius  in  the  first  half  of  the  fifth  century. 

Questions  concerning  redemption,  and  the  method  of  its 
application,  embraced  under  the  grand  division  of  Soteriology, 
were  never  thoroughly  investigated  until  the  time  of  the  Refor-  v 
mation  and  subsequently  by  the  great  theologians  of  Germany 
and  Switzerland. 

Many  questions  falling  under  the  grand  division  of  Ecclesi- 
ology  even  yet  await  their  complete  solution  in  the  future. 

3.  What  are  the  three  great  si/stems  of  theology  which  have 
always  continued  to  prevail  in  the  Church  ? 

Since  the  revelation  given  in  the  Scriptures  embraces  a 
complete  system  of  truth,  every  single  department  must  sustain 
many  obvious  relations,  logical  and  otherwise,  to  every  other  as 


96  COMPARISON   OF   SYSTEMS. 

the  several  parts  of  one  whole.  The  imperfect  development,  and 
the  defective  or  exaggerated  conception  of  any  one  doctrine, 
must  inevitably  lead  to  confusion  and  error  throughout  the 
entire  system.  For  example,  Pelagian  views  as  to  man's  estate 
by  nature  always  tend  to  coalesce  with  Socinian  views  as  to 
the  Person  and  work  of  Christ.  And  Semipelagian  views  as  to 
sin  and  grace  are  also  irresistibly  attracted  by,  and  in  turn 
attract  Arminian  views  as  to  the  divine  attributes,  the  nature 
of  the  Atonement,  and  the  work  of  the  Spirit. 

There  are,  in  fact,  as  we  might  have  anticipated,  but  two 
complete  self-consistent  systems  of  Christian  theology  possible. 

1st.  On  the  right  hand,  Augustinianism  completed  in  Cal- 
vinism. 2d.  On  the  left  hand,  Pelagianism  completed  in  Socin- 
ianism.  And  3d.  Arminianism  comes  between  these  as  the 
system  of  compromises,  and  is  developed  Semipelagianism. 

In  the  common  usage  of  terms  Socinianism  is  principally 
applied  as  the  designation  of  those  elements  of  the  false  system 
which  relate  to  the  Trinity  of  the  Person  of  Christ;  the  terms 
Pelagianism  and  Semipelagianism  are  applied  to  the  more  ex- 
treme or  the  more  moderate  departures  from  the  truth  under 
the  head  of  Anthropology;  and  the  term  Arminianism  is  used  to 
designate  the  less  extreme  errors  concerned  with  the  Depart- 
ment of  Soteriology. 

4.  When  and  where  and  by  ivhom  were  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciples of  the  tioo  great  antagonistic  schools  of  tlieohgy  first  dearly 
discriminated  ? 

The  contrasted  positions  of  the  Augustinian  and  Pelagian 
systems  were  first  taught  out  and  defined  through  the  contro- 
versies maintained  by  the  eminent  men  whose  name  they  bear, 
during  the  first  third  of  the  fifth  century. 

Augustine  was  bishop  of  Hippo  in  Northern  Africa  from 
A.  d.  395  to  a.  d.  430.  Pelagius,  whose  family  name  was  Morgan, 
was  a  British  monk.  He  was  assisted  in  his  controversies  by 
his  disciples  Coelestius  and  Julian  of  Eclanum  in  Italy. 

The  positions  maintained  by  Pelagius  were  generally  con- 
demned by  the  representatives  of  the  whole  Church,  and  have 
ever  since  been  held  by  all  denominations,  except  professed 
Socinians,  to  be  fatal  heresy.  They  were  condemned  by  the 
two  councils  held  at  Carthage  a.  d.  407  and  a.  d.  416,  by  the 
Council  held  at  Milevum  in  Numidia  a.  d.  416;  by  the  popes 
Innocent  and  Zosimus,  and  by  the  (Ecumenical  Council  held  at 
Ephesus  a.  d.  431.  This  speedy  and  universal  repudiation  of 
Pelagianism  proves  that  while  the  views  of  the  early  Fathers 
upon  this  class  of  questions  were  very  imperfect,  nevertheless 
the  system  taught  by  Augustine  must  have  been  in  all  essen 


AUGUSTINIANISM  AND    PELAGIANISM   COMPARED.        97 

tials  the  same  with  the  faith  of  the  Church  as  a  whole  from 
the  beginning. 

5.  State  in  contrast  the  main  distinguishing  positions  of  the  Aur 
gustinian  and  Pelagian  systems. 

"  1st.  As  to  Original  Sin.* 

"Augustinianism.  By  the  sin  of  Adam,  in  whom  all  men 
together  sinned,  sin  and  all  the  other  positive  punishments  of 
Adam's  sin  came  into  the  world.  By  it  human  nature  has  been 
both  physically  and  morally  corrupted.  Every  man  brings  into 
the  world  with  him  a  nature  already  so  corrupt,  that  it  can  do 
nothing  but  sin.  The  propagation  of  this  quality  of  his  nature 
is  by  concupiscence. 

"Pelagianlsm.  By  his  transgression,  Adam  injured  only  him- 
self, not  his  posterity.  In  respect  to  his  moral  nature,  every 
man  is  born  in  precisely  the  same  condition  in  which  Adam 
was  created.     There  is  therefore  no  original  sin. 

"  2d.  As  to  Free  will. 

"Augustinianism.  By  Adam's  transgression  the  freedom  of 
the  human  will  has  been  entirely  lost.  In  his  present  corrupt 
state  man  can  will  and  do  only  evil. 

"Pelagianlsm.  Man's  will  is  free.  Every  man  has  the  power 
to  will  and  t*>  do  good  as  well  as  the  opposite.  Hence  it  de- 
pends upon  himself  whether  he  be  good  or  evil. 

"  3d.  As  to  Grace. 

"Augustinianism.  If  nevertheless  man  in  his  present  state, 
wills  and  does  good,  it  is  merely  the  work  of  grace.  It  is  an 
inward,  secret,  and  wonderful  operation  of  God  upon  man.  It 
is  a  preceding  as  well  as  an  accompanying  work.  By  pre- 
ceding grace,  man  attains  faith,  by  which  he  comes  to  an 
insight  of  good,  and  by  which  power  is  given  him  to  will  the 
good.  He  needs  co-operating  grace  for  the  performance  of 
every  individual  good  act.  As  man  can  do  nothing  without 
grace,  so  he  can  do  nothing  against  it.  It  is  irresistible.  And 
as  man  by  nature  has  no  merit  at  all,  no  respect  at  all  can  be 
had  to  man's  moral  disposition,  in  imparting  grace,  but  God 
acts  according  to  his  own  free  will. 

"Pelagianism.  Although  by  free  will,  which  is  a  gift  of  God, 
man  has  the  capacity  of  willing  and  doing  good  without  God's 
special  aid,  yet  for  the  easier  performance  of  it,  God  revealed 
the  law;  for  the  easier  performance,  the  instruction  and  exam- 
ple of  Christ  aid  him;  and  for  the  easier  performance,  even  the 
supernatural  operations  of  grace  are  imparted  to  him.  Grace, 
in  the  most  limited  sense  (gracious  influence)  is  given  to  those 

•"Historical  Presentation  of  Augnstinianisin  and  Pelagianism, "  by  Q.  F 
Wiggers,  D.D.,  Translated  by  liov.  Ralph  Eweisou,  pp.  '2GS-270. 

7 


98  COMPARISON   OF  SYSTEMS. 

only  who  deserve  it  by  the  faithful  employment  of  their  own 
powers.     But  man  can  resist  it. 

"4th.  As  to  Predestination  and  Redemption. 

"Augustinianism.  From  eternity,  God  made  a  free  and  un- 
conditional decree  to  save  a  few  *  from  the  mass  that  was  cor- 
rupted and  subjected  to  damnation.  To  those  whom  he  pre- 
destinated to  this  salvation,  he  gives  the  requisite  means  for 
the  purpose.  But  on  the  rest,  who  do  not  belong  to  this  small* 
number  of  the  elect,  the  merited  ruin  falls.  Christ  came  into 
the  world  and  died  for  the  elect  only. 

"  Pdagianism.  God's  decree  of  election  and  reprobation  is 
founded  on  prescience.  Those  of  whom  God  foresaw  that  they 
would  keep  his  commands,  he  predestinated  to  salvation;  the 
others  to  damnation.  Christ's  redemption  is  general.  But 
those  only  need  his  atoning  death  who  have  actually  sinned. 
Att,  however,  by  his  instruction  and  example,  may  be  led  to 
higher  perfection  and  virtue." 

6.  What  was  the  origin  of  the  Middle  or  Semipelagian  system  ? 

In  the  mean  time,  while  the  Pelagian  controversy  was  at 
its  height,  John  Cassian,  of  Syrian  extraction  and  educated  in 
the  Eastern  Church,  having  removed  to  Marseilles,  in  France, 
for  the  purpose  of  advancing  the  interests  of  monkery  in  that 
region,  began  to  give  publicity  to  a  scheme  of  doctrine  occu- 
pying a  middle  position  between  the  systems  of  Augustine  and 
Pelagius.  This  system,  whose  advocates  were  called  Massilians 
from  the  residence  of  their  chief,  and  afterward  Semipelagians 
by  the  Schoolmen,  is  in  its  essential  principles  one  with  that 
system  which  is  now  denominated  Arminianism,  a  statement 
of  which  will  be  given  in  a  subsequent  part  of  this  chapter. 
Faustus,  bishop  of  Riez,  in  France,  from  a.  d.  427  to  a.  d.  480, 
was  one  of  the  most  distinguished  and  successful  advocates  of 
this  doctrine,  which  was  permanently  accepted  by  the  Eastern 
Church,  and  for  a  time  was  widely  disseminated  throughout 
the  western  also,  until  it  was  condemned  by  the  Synods  of 
Orange  and  Valence,  a.  d.  529. 

7.  What  is  the  relation  of  Augustinianism  to  Calvinism  and 
of  Semipelagianism  to  Arminianism  ? 

After  this  time  Augustinianism  became  the  recognized  or- 
thodoxy of  the  Western  Church,  and  the  name  of  no  other 
uninspired  man  exerts  such  universal  influence  among  Papists 
and  Protestants  alike.  If  any  human  name  ought  to  be  used 
to  designate  a  system  of  divinely  revealed  truth,  the  phrase 

•  The  doctrine  of  Augustine  does  not  by  any  means  involve  the  conclusion 
that  the  elect  are  "few"  or  "a  small  number." 


DURING    THE    SCHOLASTIC   AGE.  99 

Angiistiniardsm  as  opposed  to  Pelagianism  properly  designates 
all  those  elements  of  faith  which  the  whole  world  of  Evangel- 
ical Christians  hold  in  common.  On  the  other  hand  Augustin- 
ianism  as  opposed  to  Semipelagianism  properly  designates  that 
system  commonly  called  Calvinism — while  Cassianism  would 
be  the  proper  historical  designation  of  that  Middle  or  Seinipe- 
lagian  Scheme  now  commonly  styled  Arminianism. 

8.  How  ivere  parties  divided  with  respect  to  these  great  systems 
among  the  Schoolmen,  and  how  are  they  in  tJie  modern  Papal 
Church  ? 

After  the  lapse  of  the  dark  ages,  during  which  all  active 
speculation  slumbered,  the  great  Thomas  Aquinas,  an  Italian 
by  birth,  a.  p.  1224,  and  a  monk  of  the  order  of  St.  Dominic, 
Doctor  Angelicus,  advocated  with  consummate  ability  the  Au- 
gustinian  system  of  theology  in  that  cumbrous  and  artificial 
manner  which  characterized  the  Schoolmen.  John  Duns  Sco- 
tus,  a  native  of  Britain,  a.  d.  1265,  a  monk  of  the  order  of  St. 
Francis,  Doctor  Subtilis,  was  in  that  age  the  ablest  advocate 
of  the  system  then  styled  Semipelagian.  The  controversies 
then  revived  were  perpetuated  for  many  ages,  the  Dominicans 
and  the  Thomists  in  general  advocating  unconditional  election 
and  efficacious  grace,  and  the  Franciscans  and  the  Scotists  in 
general  advocating  conditional  election  and  the  inalienable 
power  of  the  human  will  to  co-operate  with  or  to  resist  divine 
grace.  The  same  disputes  under  various  party  names  continue 
to  agitate  the  Romish  Church  since  the  Reformation,  although 
the  genius  of  her  ritualistic  system,  and  the  predominance  of 
the  Jesuits  in  her  councils,  have  secured  within  her  bounds 
the  almost  universal  prevalence  of  Semipelagianism. 

The  general  Council,  commenced  at  Trent,  a.  d.  1546,  at- 
tempted to  form  a  non-committal  Creed  that  would  satisfy  the 
adherents  of  both  systems.  Accordingly  the  Dominicans  and 
Franciscans  have  both  claimed  that  their  respective  views  were 
sanctioned  by  that  Synod.  The  truth  is  that  while  the  general 
and  indefinite  statements  of  doctrine  to  be  found  among  its 
canons  are  often  Augustinian  in  form,  the  more  detailed  and 
accurate  explanations  which  follow  these  are  uniformly  Semi- 
pelagian. — Principal  Cunningham's  "Historical  Theology,"  vol. 
1,  pp.  483^95. 

The  order  of  the  Jesuits,  founded  by  Ignatius  Loyola,  a.  d. 
1541,  has  always  been  identified  with  Semipelagian  Theology. 
Lewis  Molina,  a  Spanish  Jesuit,  a.  d.  1588,  the  inventor  of  the 
distinction  denoted  by  the  term  "  Scientia  Media,"  attained  to 
such  distinction  as  its  advocate,  that  its  adherents  in  the  Papa) 
Church  have  been  for  ages  styled  Molinists.     In  1638  Janse- 


100  COMPARISON  OF  SYSTEMS. 

nius,  Bishop  of  Ypres  in  the  Netherlands  died  leaving  behind 
him  his  great  work,  Augustinus,  wherein  he  clearly  unfolded 
and  established  by  copious  extracts  the  true  theological  system 
of  Augustine  This  book  occasioned  very  wide-spread  conten- 
tions, was  ferociously  opposed  by  the  Jesuits,  and  condemned 
by  the  Bulls  of  Popes  Innocent  X.  and  Alexander  VII.,  a.  d. 
1653  and  1656 — which  last  were  followed  in  1713  by  the  more 
celebrated  Bull  " imigenitus"  of  Clement  XL,  condemning  the 
New  Testament  Commentary  of  Quesnel.  The  Augustiniana 
in  that  Church  were  subsequently  called  Jansenists,  and  had 
their  principal  seat  in  Holland  and  Belgium  and  at  Port  Koyal 
near  Paris.  They  have  numbered  among  them  some  very  illus- 
trious names,  as  Tillemont,  Arnauld,  Nicole,  Pascal,  and  Quesnel. 
These  controversies  between  the  Dominicans  and  Molinists,  the 
Jansenists  and  Jesuits,  have  continued  even  to  our  own  time, 
although  at  present  Semipelagianism  shares  with  Jesuitism  in 
its  almost  unlimited  sway  in  the  Papal  Church,  which  has  def- 
initely triumphed  in  the  Vatican  Council,  1870. 

9.  What  is  the  position  of  the  Lutheran  Church  with  relation  to 
these  great  systems  ? 

Luther,  a  monk  of  the  order  of  Augustine,  and  an  earnest 
disciple  of  that  father,  taught  a  system  of  faith  agreeing  in 
spirit  and  in  all  essential  points  with  that  afterwards  more  sys- 
tematically developed  by  Calvin.  The  only  important  point  in 
which  he  differed  from  the  common  consensus  of  the  Calvinistic 
Churches  related  to  the  literal  physical  presence  of  the  entire 
person  of  Christ  in,  with,  and  wider  the  elements  in  the  Eucharist 
With  these  opinions  of  Luther  Melanchthon  appears  to  have 
agreed  at  the  time  he  published  the  first  edition  of  his  "  Loci 
Communes."  His  opinions  however  as  to  the  freedom  of  man 
and  the  sovereignty  of  divine  grace  were  subsequently  grad- 
ually modified.  After  the  death  of  Luther,  at  the  Leipsic  Con- 
ference in  1548,  he  explicitly  declared  his  agreement  with  the 
Synergists,  who  maintain  that  in  the  regenerating  act  the  hu- 
man will  co-operates  with  divine  grace.  Melanchthon,  on  the 
other  hand,  held  a  view  of  the  relation  of  the  sign  to  the  grace 
signified  thereby  in  the  Sacraments,  much  more  nearly  con- 
forming to  opinions  of  the  disciples  of  Zwingle  and  Calvin 
than  generally  prevailed  in  his  own  Church.  His  position  on 
both  these  points  gave  great  offence  to  the  Old  Lutherans, 
and  occasioned  protracted  and  bitter  contro /ersies.  Finally, 
the  Old  or  Strict  Lutheran  party  prevailed  over  their  antago- 
nists, and  their  views  received  a  complete  scientific  statement 
in  the  "  Formula  Concordia} "  published  1580.  Although  this  re- 
markable document  never  attained  a  position  by  the  side  of 


THE    LUTHERAN  SYSTEM.  101 

the  Augsburg  Confession  and  Apology  as  the  universally  rec- 
ognized Confession  of  the  Lutheran  Churches,  it  may  justly  be 
taken  as  the  best  available  witness  as  to  what  strictly  Lutheran 
theology  when  developed  into  a  complete  system  really  is. 

The  Characteristics  of  Lutheran  theology  as  contrasted  with 
that  of  the  Reformed  Churches  may  be  briefly  stated  under  the 
following  heads: 

1st.  As  to  Theology  proper  and  Christology  the  only  points 
in  which  it  differs  from  Calvinism  are  the  following: 

(1.)  As  to  the  divine  attributes  of  sovereign  foreordination, 
they  hold  that  as  far  as  it  is  concerned  with  the  actions  of 
moral  agents  it  is  limited  to  those  actions  which  are  morally 
good,  while  it  sustains  no  determining  relation  to  those  which 
are  bad.  God  foreknoivs  all  events  of  whatever  kind ;  he  foreor- 
dains  all  the  actions  of  necessary  agents,  and  the  good  actions 
of  fi  ee  agents — but  nothing  else. 

(2.)  As  to  Christology,  they  hold  that  in  virtue  of  the  hypo- 
statical  union  the  human  element  of  Christ's  person  partakes 
with  the  divine  in  at  least  some  of  its  peculiar  attributes. 
Thus  his  human  soul  shares  in  the  omniscience  and  omnipo- 
tence of  his  divinity,  and  his  body  in  its  omnipresence,  and 
together  they  have  the  power  of  giving  life  to  the  truly  believ- 
ing recipient  of  the  sacrament. 

2d.  As  to  Anthropology,  they  hold  views  identical  with  those 
held  by  the  staun chest  advocates  of  the  Reformed  Theology — 
as  for  instance  the  antecedent  and  immediate  imputation  of 
Adam's  public  sin ;  the  total  moral  depravity  of  all  his  descend- 
ants from  birth  and  by  nature,  and  their  absolute  inability  to 
do  aright  in  their  own  strength  any  thing  which  pertains  to 
their  relation  to  God. 

3d.  As  to  the  great  central  elements  of  Soteriology,  they 
agree  with  the  Reformed  with  great  exactness  as  to  the  nature 
and  necessity  of  the  expiatory  work  of  Christ;  as  to  forensic 
justification  through  the  imputation  to  the  believer  of  both  the 
active  and  passive  obedience  of  Christ;  as  to  the  nature  and 
office  of  justifying  faith ;  as  to  the  sole  agency  of  divine  grace 
in  the  regeneration  of  the  sinner,  with  which,  in  the  first  in- 
stance, the  dead  soul  is  unable  to  co-operate;  as  to  God's  eter- 
nal and  sovereign  election  of  believers  in  Christ,  not  because 
of  any  thing  foreseen  in  them,  but  because  of  his  own  gracious 
will — and  consequently  as  to  the  fact  that  the  salvation  of 
every  soul  really  saved  is  to  be  attributed  purely  and  solely  to 
the  grace  of  God,  and  not  in  any  degree  to  the  co-operating 
will  or  merit  of  the  man  himself. 

At  the  same  time  they  teach,  with  obvious  logical  incon 
sistency,  that  the  grace  of  the  gospel  is  in  divine  intention 


102  COMPARISON   OF   SYSTEMS. 

absolutely  universal.  Christ  died  equally  and  in  the  same 
sense  for  all  men.  He  gives  grace  alike  to  all  men.  Those 
who  are  lost  are  lost  because  they  resist  the  grace.  Those 
who  are  saved  owe  their  salvation  simply  to  the  grace  they 
have  in  common  with  the  lost — to  the  very  same  grace — not 
to  a  greater  degree  of  grace  nor  to  a  less  degree  of  sin — not  to 
their  own  improvement  of  grace,  but  simply  to  the  grace  itself 
According  to  them  God  sovereignly  elects  all  those  who  are 
saved,  but  he  does  not  sovereignly  pass  over  those  who  are 
lost.  He  gives  the  same  grace  to  all  men,  and  the  difference 
is  determined  by  the  persistent  resistance  of  those  who  are  lost 
The  grand  distinction  of  Lutheranism  however  relates  to 
their  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist.  They  hold  to  the  real  phys- 
ical presence  of  the  Lord  in  the  Eucharist,  in,  with,  and  under 
the  elements,  and  that  the  grace  signified  and  conveyed  by 
the  sacraments  is  necessary  to  salvation,  and  conveyed  ordi- 
narily by  no  other  means.  Hence  the  theology  and  church 
life  of  the  strict  Lutherans  centre  in  the  sacraments.  They 
differ  from  the  high  sacramental  party  in  the  Episcopal  Church 
chiefly  in  the  fact  that  they  ignore  the  dogma  of  apostolical 
succession,  and  the  traditions  of  the  early  church. 

10.  Into  what  two  great  'parties  has  the  Protestant  world  always 
been  divided? 

The  whole  Protestant  world  from  the  time  of  the  Reforma- 
tion  has  been  divided  into  two  great  families  of  churches,  clas- 
sified severally  as  Lutheran,  or  those  whose  character  was 
derived  from  Luther  and  Melanchthon;  and  as  Reformed,  or 
those  who  have  received  the  characteristic  impress  of  Calvin. 
The  Lutheran  family  of  churches  comprises  all  of  those  Prot- 
estants of  Germany,  of  Hungary,  and  the  Baltic  provinces  of 
Russia,  who  adhere  to  the  Augsburg  Confession,  together  with 
the  national  churches  of  Denmark  and  of  Norway  and  Sweden, 
and  the  large  denomination  of  the  name  in  America.  These 
are  estimated  as  amounting  to  a  population  of  about  twenty- 
five  millions  of  pure  Lutherans,  while  the  Evangelical  Church 
of  Prussia,  which  was  formed  of  a-  political  union  of  the  adhe- 
rents of  the  two  Confessions,  embraces  probably  eleven  millions 
and  a  half.  Their  Symbolical  Books  are  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession and  Apology,  the  Articles  of  Smalcald,  Luther's  Larger 
and  Smaller  Catechism,  and,  as  received  by  the  Stricter  party, 
the  Formula  Concordia^.  The  Calvinistio  or  Reformed  churches 
<mii1  trace,  in  the  strict  usage  of  the  term,  all  those  Protestant 
Churches  which  derive  their  Theology  from  Geneva;  and  among 
these,  because  of  obvious  qualifying  conditions,  the  Episcopal 
Churches  of  England,  Ireland,  and  America  form  a  subdivision 


UNITARIANISM.  103 

by  themselves ;  and  the  Wesleyan  Methodists,  who  are  usually 
classed  among  the  Reformed  because  they  were  historically 
developed  from  that  stock,  are  even  yet  more  distinctly  than 
the  parent  church  of  England  removed  from  the  normal  type 
of  the  general  class.  In  a  general  sense,  however,  this  class 
comprises  all  those  churches  of  Germany  which  subscribe  to 
the  Heidelburg  Catechism,  the  churches  of  Switzerland,  France, 
Holland,  England,  and  Scotland,  the  Independents  and  Baptists 
of  England  and  America,  and  the  various  branches  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  in  England,  Ireland,  and  America.  These  em- 
brace about  eight  millions  German  Reformed;  two  millions  in 
the  Reformed  church  of  Hungary;  twelve  millions  and  a  half 
Episcopalians  ;  Presbyterians,  six  millions  ;  Methodists,  three 
millions  and  a  half;  Baptists,  four  millions  and  a  half;  and 
Independents,  one  million  and  a  half; — in  all  about  thirty-eight 
millions. 

The  principal  confessions  of  the  Reformed  Church  are  the 
Gallic,  Belgic,  2d  Helvetic,  and  Scotch  Confessions ;  the  Heidel- 
burg Catechism ;  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land ;  the  Canons  of  the  Synod  of  Dort,  and  the  Confession  and 
Catechisms  of  the  "Westminster  Assembly. 

11.  State  the  Origin  of  the  Unitarian  Heresy. 

In  the  early  church  the  Ebionites,  a  Jewish-Gnostic  Chris- 
tian sect,  were  the  only  representatives  of  those  in  modern  times 
called  Socinians.  A  party  among  them  were  called  Elkesai'tes. 
Their  ideas,  with  special  modifications,  are  found  expressed  in 
the  "Clementine  Homilies,"  written  about  a.  d.  150  in  Ori- 
ental Syria.  The  most  distinguished  humanitarians  in  the  early 
church  were  the  two  Theodotuses  of  Rome,  both  laymen,  Arte- 
mon  (fl80)  and  Paul  of  Samosata,  bishop  of  Antioch  (260-270), 
deposed  by  a  Council  held  269.  Most  of  these  admitted  the 
supernatural  birth  of  Christ,  but  maintair.ed  that  he  was  a  mere 
man,  honored  by  a  special  divine  influence.  They  admitted  an 
apotheosis  or  relative  deification  of  Christ  consequent  upon  his 
earthly  achievements.  (Dr.  E.  De  Pressense,  "Early  Years  of 
Christianity,"  Part  3,  bk.  1,  chs.  3  and  5). 

Cerinthus,  who  lived  during  the  last  of  the  first  and  the 
first  of  the  second  century,  held  that  Jesus  was  a  mere  man 
born  of  Mary  and  Joseph,  that  the  Christ  or  Logos  came  down 
upon  him  in  the  shape  of  a  dove  at  his  baptism,  when  he  was 
raised  to  the  dignity  of  the  son  of  God,  and  wrought  miracles, 
etc.  The  Logos  left  the  man  Jesus  to  suffer  alone  at  his  cruci- 
fixion.    The  resurrection  also  was  denied. 

They  were  succeeded  by  the  Arians  in  the  fourth  century 
During  the  Middle  Ages  there  remained  no  party  within  the 


104  COMPARISON   OF   SYSTEMS. 

church  that  openly  denied  the  supreme  divinity  of  our  Lord. 
In  modern  times  Unitarianism  revived  at  the  period  of  the 
Reformation  through  the  agency  of  Laslius  Socmus  of  Italy. 
It  was  carried  by  him  into  Switzerland  and  existed  there  as  a 
doctrine  professed  by  a  few  conspicuous  heretics  from  1525  to 
1560.  The  most  prominent  of  its  professors  were  the  Socini, 
Servetus,  and  Ochino.  It  existed  as  an  organized  church  at 
Racow  in  Poland,  where  the  exiled  heretics  found  a  refuge 
from  1539  to  1658,  when  the  Socinians  were  driven  out  of 
Poland  by  the  Jesuits,  and  passing  into  Holland  became  ab- 
sorbed in  the  Remonstrant  or  Arminian  Churches.  In  1609 
Schmetz  drew  up  from  materials  afforded  by  the  teaching  of 
Faustus  Socinus,  the  nephew  of  Laelius,  and  of  J.  Crellius,  the 
Racovian  Catechism,  which  is  the  standard  of  Socinianism  (see 
Ree's  translation,  1818.)  After  their  dispersion,  Andrew  Wisso- 
watius  and  others  collected  the  most  important  writings  of  their 
leading  theologians  under  the  title  "Bibliotheca  Fratrum  Polo- 
norum."  Socinianism  was  developed  by  these  writers  with 
consummate  ability,  and  crystalized  into  its  most  perfect  form, 
as  a  logical  system.  It  is  purely  Unitarian  in  its  theology — 
\y  Humanitarian  in  its  Ghristology,  Pelagian  in  its  Anthropology — 
and  its  Soteriology  was  developed  in  perfect  logical  and  ethical 
consistency  with  those  elements.  A  statement  of  its  charac- 
teristic positions  will  be  found  below. 

It  reappeared  again  as  a  doctrine  held  by  a  few  isolated  men 
in  England  in  the  seventeenth  century.  During  the  eighteenth 
century  a  number  of  degenerate  Presbyterian  Churches  in  Eng- 
land lapsed  into  Socinianism,  and  towards  the  end  of  the  same 
century  a  larger  number  of  Congregational  Churches  in  Eastern 
Massachusetts  followed  their  example,  and  these  together  con- 
stitute the  foundation  of  the  modern  Unitarian  Denomination. 
"  Its  last  form  is  a  modification  of  the  old  Socinianism 
formed  under  the  pressure  of  evangelical  religion  on  the  one 
hand,  and  of  rationalistic  criticism  on  the  other.  Priestley, 
Channing,  and  J.  Martineau  are  the  examples  of  the  successive 
phases  of  Modern  Unitarianism.  Priestley,  of  the  old  Socinian- 
ism, building  itself  upon  a  sensational  philosophy ;  Channing, 
of  an  attempt  to  gain  a  large  development  of  the  spiritual 
element;  Martineau,  of  the  elevation  of  view  induced  by  the 
philosophy  of  Cousin,  and  the  introduction  of  the  idea  of  his- 
torical progress  in  religious  ideas." — "Farrar's  Crit.  Hist,  of 
Free  Thought,"  Bampton  Lecture,  1862. 

12.  At  ivhat  date  and  wider  wJiat  circumstances  did  modern 
Arminianism  arise? 

James  Arminius,  professor  of  theology  in  the  university  of 


THE    REMONSTRANTS.  105 

Leyden  from  1G02  until  his  death  in  1G09,  although  a  minis- 
ter of  the  Calvinistic  Church  of  Holland,  at  first  secretly,  and 
afterwards  more  openly,  advocated  that  scheme  of  theological 
opinion  which  has  ever  subsequently  been  designated  by  his 
name.  These  views  were  rapidly  diffused,  and  at  the  same 
time  strongly  opposed  by  the  principal  men  in  the  church. 
His  disciples,  consequently,  about  a  year  after  his  death  formed 
themselves  into  an  organized  party,  and  in  that  capacity  pre- 
sented a  Remonstrance  to  the  States  of  Holland  and  West  Fries- 
land,  praying  to  be  allowed  to  hold  their  places  in  the  church 
Avithout  being  subjected  by  the  ecclesiastical  courts  to  vexatious 
examinations  as  to  their  orthodoxy.  From  the  fact  that  the  ut- 
terance of  this  Remonstrance  was  their  first  combined  act  as  a 
party,  they  were  afterwards  known  in  history  as  Remonstrants. 

Soon  after  this  the  Remonstrants,  for  the  sake  of  defining 
their  position,  presented  to  the  authorities  five  Articles  express- 
ing their  belief  on  the  subject  of  Predestination  and  Grace.  This 
is  the  origin  of  the  famous  "  Five  Points  "  in  the  controversy 
between  Calvinism  and  Arminianism.  Very  soon  however  the 
controversy  took  a  much  wider  range,  and  the  Arminians  were 
forced  by  logical  consistency  to  teach  radically  erroneous  views 
with  respect  to  the  nature  of  sin,  original  sin,  imputation,  the 
nature  of  the  Atonement,  and  Justification  by  faith.  Some  of 
their  later  writers  carried  the  rationalistic  spirit  inherent  in 
their  system  to  its  legitimate  results  in  a  hardly  qualified 
Pelagianism,  and  some  were  even  suspected  of  Socinianism. 

As  all  other  means  had  failed  to  silence  the  innovators, 
the  States  General  called  together  a  General  Synod  at  Dort  in 
Holland,  which  held  its  sessions  in  the  year  1618-1619.  It 
consisted  of  pastors,  elders,  and  theological  professors  from  the 
churches  of  Holland,  and  deputies  from  the  churches  of  Eng- 
land, Scotland,  Hesse,  Bremen,  the  Palatinate  and  Switzerland: 
the  promised  attendance  of  delegates  from  the  French  churches 
being  prevented  by  an  interdict  of  their  king.  The  foreign 
delegates  present  were  nineteen  Presbyterians  from  Reformed 
churches  on  the  Continent,  and  one  from  Scotland,  and  four 
Episcopalians  from  the  church  of  England  headed  by  the  bishop 
of  Llandaff.  This  Synod  unanimously  condemned  the  doctrines 
of  the  Arminians,  and  in  their  Articles  confirmed  the  common 
Calvinistic  faith  of  the  Reformed  churches.  The  most  distin- 
guished Remonstrant  Theologians  who  succeeded  Arminius 
were  Episcopius,  Curcellasus,  Limborch,  Le  Clerc,  "Wetstein, 
and  the  illustrious  jurisconsult  Grotius. 

The  denomination  of  Methodists  in  Great  Britain  and  Amer- 
ica is  the  only  large  Protestant  body  in  the  world  with  an 
avowedly  Arminian  Creed.     Their  Arminianism,  however,  aa 


106  COMPARISON   OF   SYSTEMS. 

presented  by  their  standard  writer,  Ki chard  Watson,  an  incom« 
parably  more  competent  theologian  than  Wesley,  is  far  lesa 
removed  from  the  Calvinism  of  the  Westminster  Assembly 
than  the  system  of  the  later  Remonstrants,  and  should  always 
be  designated  by  the  qualified  phrase  "  Evangelical  Arminian- 
ism."  In  the  hands  of  Watson  the  Anthropology  and  Soteri- 
ology  of  Arminianism  are  in  a  general  sense  nearly  assimilated 
to  the  corresponding  provinces  of  Lntheranism,  and  of  the  Cal- 
vinism of  Baxter,  and  of  the  French  School  of  the  seventeenth 
century. 

13.  Give  an  outline  of  ike  main  positions  of  the  Socinian  System, 

Theology  and  Christology. 

1st.  Divine  Unity. 

(a.)  This  unity  inconsistent  with  any  personal  distinctions 
in  the  Godhead. 

(p.)  Christ  is  a  mere  man. 

(c.)  The  Holy  Ghost  is  an  impersonal  divine  influence. 

2d.  Divine  Attributes. 

(a.)  There  is  no  principle  of  vindicatory  justice  in  God. 
Nothing  to  prevent  his  acceptance  of  sinners  on  the  simple 
ground  of  repentance. 

(b.)  Future  contingent  events  are  essentially  unknowable. 
The  foreknowledge  of  God  does  not  extend  to  such  events. 

Anthropology. 

(a.)  Man  was  created  without  positive  moral  character. 
The  "  image  of  God  "  in  which  man  was  said  to  be  created  did 
not  include  holiness. 

(b.)  Adam  in  eating  the  forbidden  fruit  committed  actual 
sin,  and  thereby  incurred  the  divine  displeasure,  but  he  retained 
nevertheless  the  same  moral  nature  and  tendencies  with  which 
he  was  created,  and  he  transmitted  these  intact  to  his  posterity. 

(c.)  The  guilt  of  Adam's  sin  is  not  imputed. 

(d.)  Man  is  now  as  able  by  nature  to  discharge  all  his  obli- 
gations as  he  ever  was.  The  circumstances  under  which  man's 
character  is  now  formed  are  more  unfavorable  than  in  Adam's 
case,  and  therefore  man  is  weak.  But  God  is  infinitely  mer- 
ciful; and  obligation  is  graded  by  ability.  Man  was  created 
naturally  mortal  and  would  have  died  had  he  sinned  or  not. 

SoTERIOLOGY. 

The  great  object  of  Christ's  mission  was  to  teach  and  to 
give  assurance  with  respect  to  those  truths  concerning  which 
the  conclusions  of  mere  human  reason  are  problematical.  This 
he  does  both  by  doctrine  and  example. 

1st.  Christ  did  not  execute  the  office  of  priest  upon  earth ; 
but  only  in  heaven,  and  there  in  a  very  indefinite  sense. 


THE    SOCINIAN  SYSTEM.  107 

2d.  The  main  office  of  Christ  was  prophetical.  He  taught 
a  new  law.  Gave  an  example  of  a  holy  life.  Taught  the  per- 
sonality of  God.  And  illustrated  the  doctrine  of  a  future  life 
by  his  own  resurrection. 

3d.  His  death  was  necessary  only  as  a  condition  unavoid- 
ably prerequisite  to  his  resurrection.  It  was  also  designed  to 
make  a  moral  impression  upon  sinners,  disposing  them  to  re- 
pentance on  account  of  sin,  and  assuring  them  of  the  clemency 
of  God.  No  propitiation  of  divine  justice  was  necessary,  nor 
would  it  be  possible  by  means  of  vicarious  suffering. 

ESCATOLOGY. 

1st.  In  the  intermediate  period  between  death  and  the  res- 
urrection the  soul  remains  unconscious. 

2d.  "  For  it  is  evident  from  the  authorities  cited,  that  they 
(the  older  Socinians),  equally  with  others,  constantly  maintain 
that  there  will  be  a  resurrection  both  of  the  just  and  of  the 
unjust,  and  that  the  latter  shall  be  consigned  to  everlasling 
punishment,  but  the  former  admitted  to  everlasting  life." — B. 
Wissowatius. 

"The  doctrine  of  the  proper  eternity  of  hell  torments  is 
rejected  by  most  Unitarians  of  the  present  day  (1818),  as  in 
their  opinion  wholly  irreconcilable  with  the  divine  goodness, 
and  unwarranted  by  the  Scriptures.  In  reference  to  the  future 
fate  of  the  wicked,  some  hold  that  after  the  resurrection  they 
will  be  annihilated  or  consigned  to  'everlasting  destruction' 
in  the  literal  sense  of  the  words:  but  most  have  received  the 
doctrine  of  universal  restoration,  which  maintains  that  all  men, 
however  depraved  their  characters  may  have  been  in  this  life, 
will,  by  a  corrective  discipline,  suited  in  the  measure  of  its 
severity  to  the  nature  of  each  particular  case,  be  brought  ulti- 
mately to  goodness  and  consequently  to  happiness." — Rees's 
"  Racovian  Catechism,"  pp.  367,  368. 

EcCLESIOLOGY. 

1st.  The  church  is  simply  a  voluntary  society.  Its  object 
mutual  improvement.  Its  common  bond  similarity  of  senti- 
ments and  pursuits.     Its  rule  is  human  reason. 

2d.  The  Sacraments  are  simply  commemorative  and  teach- 
ing ordinances. 

14.  Give  an  outline  of  tlve  main  features  of  (lie  Arminian  System. 

Divine  Attributes. 

1st.  They  admit  that  vindicatory  justice  is  a  divine  at- 
tribute, but  hold  that  it  is  relaxable,  rather  optional  than 
essential,  rather  belonging  to  administrative  policy  than  to 
necessary  principle. 

2d.  They  admit  that  God  foreknows  all  events  without  ex 


/ 


108  COMPARISON  OF  SYSTEMS. 

ception.  They  invented  the  distinction  expressed  by  the  terra 
Scientia  Media  to  explain  God's  certain  foreknowledge  of  future 
events,  the  futurition  of  which  remain  undetermined  by  his  will, 
or  any  other  antecedent  cause. 

3d.  They  deny  that  God's  foreordination  extends  to  the  voli- 
tions of  free  agents,  and  hold  that  the  eternal  election  of  men 
to  salvation  is  not  absolute,  but  conditioned  upon  foreseen  faith 
and  obedience. 

Anthropology. 

1st.  Moral  character  can  not  be  created  but  is  determined 
only  by  previous  self-decision. 

2d.  Both  liberty  and  responsibility  necessarily  involve  pos- 
session of  power  to  the  contrary. 

3d.  They  usually  deny  the  imputation  of  the  guilt  of  Adam's 
first  sin. 

4th.  The  strict  Arminians  deny  total  depravity,  and  admit 
only  the  moral  enfeeblement  of  nature.  Arminius  and  Wesley 
were  more  orthodox  but  less  self-consistent. 

5th.  They  deny  that  man  has  ability  to  originate  holy  action 
or  to  carry  it  on  in  his  own  unassisted  strength — but  affirm  that 
every  man  has  power  to  co-operate  with,  or  to  resist  "common 
grace."  That  which  alone  distinguishes  the  saint  from  the  sin- 
ner is  his  own  use  or  abuse  of  grace. 

6th.  They  regard  gracious  influence  as  rather  moral  and 
suasory  than  as  a  direct  and  effectual  exertion  of  the  new  cre- 
ative energy  of  God. 

7th.  They  maintain  the  liability  of  the  saint  at  every  stage 
of  his  earthly  career  to  fall  from  grace. 

SOTERIOLOGY. 

1st.  They  admit  that  Christ  made  a  vicarious  offering  of 
himself  in  place  of  sinful  men,  and  yet  deny  that  he  suffered 
either  the  literal  -penalty  of  the  law,  or  a  full  equivalent  for  it, 
and  maintain  that  his  sufferings  were  graciously  accepted  as  a 
substitute  for  the  penalty. 

2d.  They  hold  that  not  only  with  respect  to  its  sufficiency 
and  adaptation,  but  also  in  the  intention  of  the  Father  in  giv- 
ing the  Son,  and  of  the  Son  in  dying,  Christ  died  in  the  same 
sense  for  all  men  alike. 

3d.  That  the  acceptance  of  Christ's  satisfaction  in  the  place 
of  the  infliction  of  the  penalty  on  sinners  in  person  involves  a 
relaxation  of  the  divine  law. 

4th.  That  Christ's  satisfaction  enables  God  in  consistency 
with  his  character,  and  the  interests  of  his  general  government, 
to  offer  salvation  on  easier  terms.  The  gospel  hence  is  a  new 
Law,  demanding  faith  and  evangelical  obedience  in  the  stead 
<>t'  the  original  demand  of  perfect  obedience. 


) 


THE    CALVINISTIC    SYSTEM.  109 

5th.  Hen^e  Christ's  work  does  not  actually  save  any,  but 
makes  the  salvation  of  all  men  possible — removes  legal  obsta- 
cles out  of  the  way — does  not  secure  faith  but  makes  salvation 
available  on  the  condition  of  faith. 

6th.  Sufficient  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  sufficient 
opportunities  and  means  of  grace  are  granted  to  all  men. 

7th.  It  is  possible  for  and  obligatory  upon  all  men  in  this    I 
life  to  attain  to  evangelical  perfection — which  is  explained  as 
a  being  perfectly  sincere — a  being  animated  by  perfect  love 
—  and  a  doing  all  that  is  required  of  us  under  the  gospel 
dispensation. 

8th.  With  respect  to  the  heathen  some  have  held  that  in 
some  way  or  other  the  gospel  is  virtually,  if  not  in  form, 
preached  to  all  men.  Others  have  held  that  in  the  future 
world  there  are  three  conditions  corresponding  to  the  three 
great  classes  of  men  as  they  stand  related  to  the  gospel  in  this 
world — the  Status  Credentium;  the  Status  Incredulorum;  the 
Status  Ignorantium. 

15.  Give  a  brief  outline  of  the  main  features  of  the  Galvinistic 
System. 

Theology. 

1st.  God  is  an  absolute  sovereign,  infinitely  wise,  righteous, 
benevolent,  and  powerful,  determining  from  eternity  the  cer- 
tain futurition  of  all  events  of  every  class  according  to  the 
counsel  of  his  own  will. 

2d.  Vindicatory  Justice  is  an  essential  and  immutable  per- 
fection of  the  divine  nature  demanding  the  full  punishment  of 
all  sin,  the  exercise  of  which  can  not  be  relaxed  or  denied  by 
the  divine  will. 

Christology. 

The  Mediator  is  one  single,  eternal,  divine  person,  at  once 
very  God,  and  very  man.  In  the  unity  of  the  Theanthropic 
person  the  two  natures  remain  pure  and  unmixed,  and  retain 
each  its  separate  and  incommunicable  attributes  distinct.  The 
personality  is  that  of  the  eternal  and  unchangeable  Logos. 
The  human  nature  is  impersonal.  All  mediatorial  actions  in- 
volve the  concurrent  exercise  of  the  energies  of  both  natures 
according  to  their  several  properties  in  the  unity  of  the  single 
person. 

ANTHROPOLOGY. 

1st.  God  created  man  by  an  immediate  fiat  of  omnipotence 
and  in  a  condition  of  physical,  intellectual,  and  moral  fault- 
lessness,  with  a  positively  formed  moral  character. 

2d.  The  guilt  of  Adam's  public  sin  is  by  a  judicial  act  of 
God  immediately  charged  to  the  account  of  each  of  his  de- 


110  COMPARISON   OF  SYSTEMS. 

scendants  from  the  moment  he  begins  to  exist  antecedently  to 
any  act  of  his  own. 

3d.  Hence  men  come  into  existence  in  a  condition  of  con- 
demnation deprived  of  those  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon 
which  their  moral  and  spiritual  life  depends. 

4th.  Hence  they  come  into  moral  agency  deprived  of  that 
original  righteousness  which  belonged  to  human  nature  as 
created  in  Adam,  and  with  an  antecedent  prevailing  tendency 
in  their  nature  to  sin,  which  tendency  in  them  is  of  the  nature 
of  sin,  and  worthy  of  punishment. 

,•  5th.  Man's  nature  since  the  fall  retains  its  constitutional 
faculties  of  reason,  conscience,  and  free-will,  and  hence  man 
continues  a  responsible  moral  agent,  but  he  is  nevertheless 
,  spiritually  dead,  and  totally  averse  to  spiritual  good,  and  abso- 
lutely unable  to  change  his  own  heart,  or  adequately  to  dis- 
charge any  of  those  duties  which  spring  out  of  his  relation 
to  God. 

SOTERIOLOGT. 

1st.  The  salvation  of  man  is  absolutely  of  grace.  God  was 
free  in  consistency  with  the  infinite  perfections  of  his  nature  to 
save  none,  few,  many,  or  all,  according  to  his  sovereign  good 
pleasure. 

2d.  Christ  acted  as  Mediator  in  pursuance  of  an  eternal  cov- 
enant formed  between  the  Father  and  the  Son,  according  to 
which  he  was  put  in  the  law-place  of  his  own  elect  people  as 
their  personal  substitute,  and  as  such  by  his  obedience  and 
suffering  he  discharged  all  the  obligations  growing  out  of  their 
federal  relations  to  law — by  his  sufferings  vicariously  enduring 
their  penal  debt — by  his  obedience  vicariously  discharging 
those  covenant  demands,  upon  which  their  eternal  well-being 
was  suspended — thus  fulfilling  the  requirements  of  the  law, 
satisfying  the  justice  of  God,  and  securing  the  eternal  salvation 
of  those  for  whom  he  died. 

3d.  Hence,  by  his  death  he  purchased  the  saving  influences 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  for  all  for  whom  he  died.  And  the  Holy 
Spirit  infallibly  applies  the  redemption  purchased  by  Christ  to 
all  for  whom  he  intended  it,  in  the  precise  time  and  under  the 
precise  conditions  predetermined  in  the  eternal  Covenant  of 
Grace — and  he  does  this  by  the  immediate  and  intrinsically 
efficacious  exercise  of  his  power,  operating  directly  within 
them,  and  in  the  exercises  of  their  renewed  nature  bringing 
them  to  act  faith  and  repentance  and  all  gracious  obedience. 

4th.  Justification  is  a  judicial  act  of  God,  whereby  imputing 
to  us  the  perfect  righteousness  of  Christ,  including  his  active 
and  passive  obedience,  he  proceeds  to  regard  and  treat  us  accord- 
ingly, pronouncing  all  the  penal  claims  of  law  to  be  satisfied. 


CALVINISTIC   DOCTRINE.  Ill 

and  us  to  be  graciously  entitled  to  all  the  immunities  and 
rewards  conditioned  in  the  original  Adamic  covenant  upon 
perfect  obedience. 

5th.  Although  absolute  moral  perfection  is  unattainable  in 
this  life,  and  assurance  is  not  of  the  essence  of  faith,  it  is  never- 
theless possible  and  obligatory  upon  each  believer  to  seek  after 
and  attain  to  a  full  assurance  of  his  own  personal  salvation, 
and  leaving  the  things  that  are  behind  to  strive  after  perfection 
in  all  things. 

6th.  Although  if  left  to  himself  every  believer  would  fall  in 
an  instant,  and  although  most  believers  do  experience  tem- 
porary seasons  of  backsliding,  yet  God  by  the  exercise  of  his 
grace  in  their  hearts,  in  pursuance  of  the  provisions  of  the 
eternal  Covenant  of  Grace  and  of  the  purpose  of  Christ  in  dying, 
infallibly  prevents  even  the  weakest  believer  from  final  apostasy 


CHAPTER   VII. 

CREEDS  AND  CONFESSIONS. 

As  Creeds  and  Confessions,  their  uses  and  their  history,  form 
a  distinct  subject  of  study  by  themselves,  they  will  be  consid- 
ered together  in  this  chapter,  while  references  will  be  found 
under  the  several  chapters  of  this  work  to  the  particular  Creed 
in  which  the  particular  doctrine  is  most  clearly  or  authorita- 
tively defined. 

On  this  entire  subject  consult  the  admirable  historical  and 
critical  work  of  Dr.  Philip  Schaff  of  Union  Theological  Seminary, 
New  York — the  "Creeds  op  Christendom."  In  the  first  volume  he 
presents  a  history  of  the  authorship  and  occasion  of  each  Creed 
or  Confession  and  a  critical  estimate  of  its  contents  and  value. 
In  volumes  second  and  third  he  gives  the  text  of  all  the 
principal  creeds  in  two  languages. 

1.  Why  are  Creeds  and  Confessions  necessary,  and  hoio  have 
they  been  produced  ? 

The  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  having  been 
given  by  inspiration  of  God,  are  for  man  in  his  present  state 
the  only  and  the  all-sufficient  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  This 
divine  word,  therefore,  is  the  only  standard  of  doctrine  which 
has  any  intrinsic  authority  binding  the  consciences  of  men.  All 
other  standards  are  of  value  or  authority  only  as  they  teach 
what  the  Scriptures  teach. 

But  it  is  the  inalienable  duty  and  necessity  of  men  to  arrive 
at  the  meaning  of  the  Scriptures  in  the  use  of  their  natural 
faculties,  and  by  the  ordinary  instruments  of  interpretation. 
Since  all  truth  is  self-consistent  in  all  its  parts,  and  since  the 
human  reason  always  instinctively  strives  to  reduce  all  the 
elements  of  knowledge  with  which  it  grapples  to  logical  unity 
and  consistency,  it  follows  that  men  must  more  or  less  formally 
construct  a  system  of  faith  out  of  the  materials  presented  in 
the  Scriptures.     Every  student  of  the  Bible  necessarily  does 


THEIR    ORIGIN  AND    USES.  113 

this  in  the  very  process  of  understanding  and  digesting  its 
teaching,  and  all  such  students  make  it  manifest  that  they 
have  found,  in  one  way  or  another,  a  system  of  faith  as  com- 
plete as  for  him  has  been  possible,  by  the  very  language  ho 
uses  in  prayer,  praise,  and  ordinary  religious  discourse.  If 
men  refuse  the  assistance  afforded  by  the  statements  of  doc* 
trine  slowly  elaborated  and  defined  by  the  church,  they  must 
severally  make  out  their  own  creed  by  their  own  unaided  wis- 
dom. The  real  question  between  the  church  and  the  impugn- 
ers  of  human  creeds,  is  not,  as  the  latter  often  pretend,  be- 
tween the  word  of  God  and  the  creed  of  man,  but  between 
the  tried  and  proved  faith  of  the  collective  body  of  God's  peo- 
ple, and  the  private  judgment  and  the  unassisted  wisdom  of 
the  individual  objector.  As  it  would  have  been  anticipated, 
it  is  a  matter  of  fact  that  the  church  has  advanced  very  grad- 
ually in  this  work  of  accurately  interpreting  Scripture,  and 
defining  the  great  doctrines  which  compose  the  system  of 
truths  it  reveals.  The  attention  of  the  church  has  been  espe- 
cially directed  to  the  study  of  one  doctrine  in  one  age,  and  of  an- 
other doctrine  in  a  subsequent  age.  And  as  she  has  gradually 
advanced  in  the  clear  discrimination  of  gospel  truth,  she  has 
at  different  periods  set  down  an  accurate  statement  of  the 
results  of  hev  new  attainments  in  a  creed,  or  Confession  of 
Faith,  for  the  purpose  of  preservation  and  of  popular  instruc- 
tion, of  discriminating  and  defending  the  truth  from  the  per- 
version of  heretics  and  the  attacks  of  infidels,  and  of  affording 
a  common  bond  of  faith,  and  rule  of  teaching  and  discipline. 

The  ancient  creeds  of  the  universal  Church  were  formed  by 
the  first  four  oecumenical  or  general  councils,  except  the  so- 
called  Apostle's  Creed,  gradually  formed  from  the  baptismal 
confessions  in  use  in  the  different  churches  of  the  West,  and 
the  so-called  Athanasian  Creed,  which  is  of  private  and  un- 
known authorship.  The  great  authoritative  Confession  of  the 
Papal  Church  was  produced  by  the  oecumenical  council  held 
at  Trent,  1545.  The  mass  of  the  principal  Protestant  Confes- 
sions were  the  production  of  single  individuals  or  of  small 
circles  of  individuals,  e.  g.,  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  Apol- 
ogy, the  2d  Helvetic  Confession,  the  Ileidelburg  Catechism, 
the  Old  Scotch  Confession,  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  of  the 
Church  of  England,  etc.  Two,  however,  of  the  most  valuable 
and  generally  received  Protestant  Confessions  were  produced 
by  large  and  venerable  Assemblies  of  learned  divines,  namely: 
the  Canons  of  the  international  Synod  of  Dort,  and  the  Confes- 
sion and  Catechisms  of  the  national  Assembly  of  Westminster. 

2.  What  are  tJieir  legitimate  uses? 


114  CREEDS   AND    CONFESSIONS. 

They  have  been  found  in  all  ages  of  the  church  useful  for 
the  following  purposes.  (1.)  To  mark,  preserve,  and  dissemi- 
nate the  attainments  made  in  the  knowledge  of  Christian  truth 
by  any  branch  of  the  church  in  any  grand  crisis  of  its  devel- 
opment. (2.)  To  discriminate  the  truth  from  the  glosses  of 
false  teachers,  and  accurately  to  define  it  in  its  integrity  and 
due  proportions.  (3.)  To  act  as  the  bond  of  ecclesiastical  fel- 
lowship among  those  so  nearly  agreed  as  to  be  able  to  labor 
together  in  harmony.  (4.)  To  be  used  as  instruments  in  the 
great  work  of  popular  instruction. 

3.  What  is  the  ground  and  extent  of  their  authority,  or  power 
to  bind  the  conscience? 

The  matter  of  all  these  Creeds  and  Confessions  binds  the 
consciences  of  men  only  so  far  as  it  is  purely  scriptural,  and 
because  it  is  so.  The  form  in  which  that  matter  is  stated,  on 
the  other  hand,  binds  only  those  who  have  voluntarily  sub- 
scribed the  Confession  and  because  of  that  subscription. 

In  alb  churches  a  distinction  is  made  between  the  terms 
upon  which  private  members  are  admitted  to  membership,  and 
the  terms  upon  which  office-bearers  are  admitted  to  their  sacred 
trusts  of  teaching  and  ruling.  A  church  has  no  right  to  make 
any  thing  a  condition  of  membership  which  Christ  has  not 
made  a  condition  of  salvation.  The  church  is  Christ's  fold. 
The  Sacraments  are  the  seals  of  his  covenant.  All  have  a 
right  to  claim  admittance  who  make  a  credible  profession  of 
the  true  religion,  that  is,  who  are  presumptively  the  people  of 
Christ.  This  credible  profession  of  course  involves  a  compe- 
tent knowledge  of  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  Christianity,  a 
declaration  of  personal  faith  in  Christ  and  of  devotion  to  his 
service,  and  a  temper  of  mind  and  a  habit  of  life  consistent 
therewith.  On  the  other  hand,  no  man  can  be  inducted  into 
any  office  in  any  church  who  does  not  profess  to  believe  in 
the  truth  and  wisdom  of  the  constitution  and  laws  it  will  be 
his  duty  to  conserve  and  administer.  Otherwise  all  harmony 
of  sentiment  and  all  efficient  co-operation  in  action  would  be 
impossible. 

It  is  a  universally  admitted  principle  of  morals  that  the 
animus  imponentis,  the  sense  in  which  the  persons  who  impose 
an  oath,  or  promise,  or  engagement,  understand  it,  binds  the 
conscience  of  the  persons  who  bind  themselves  by  oath  or 
promise.  All  candidates  for  office  in  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
therefore,  do  either  personally  believe  the  "system  of  doctrine" 
taught  in  our  Standards,  in  the  sense  in  which  it  has  been 
historically  understood  to  be  God's  truth,  or  solemnly  he  to 
God  and  man. 


THE    ANCIENT   CREEDS.  115 

4.  Wlxat  were  the  Creeds  of  the  ancient  Church,  which  remain 
the  common  inJieritance  of  all  branches  of  the  modern  Church  ? 

I.  The  Apostle's  Creed,  so  called.  This  Creed  gradually 
grew  out  of  the  comparison  and  assimilation  of  the  Baptismal 
Creeds  of  the  principal  Churches  in  the  West  or  Latin  half  of 
the  ancient  Church.  The  most  complete  and  popular  forms  of 
these  baptismal  creeds  were  those  of  Rome,  Aquileja,  Milan, 
Ravenna,  Carthage,  and  Hippo,  "  of  which  the  Roman  form, 
enriching  itself  by  additions  from  others,  gradually  gained  the 
more  general  acceptance.  While  the  several  articles  considered 
separately  are  all  of  Nicene  or  Anti-nicene  origin,  the  creed  as 
a  whole  in  its  present  form,  can  not  be  traced  beyond  the  sixth 
century." — Schaff 's  "  Creeds  of  Christendom,"  vol.  1.  p.  20. 

It  was  subjoined  by  the  Westminster  divines  to  their  Cate- 
chism, together  with  the  Lord's  Prayer  and  Ten  Command- 
ments. "Not  as  though  it  was  composed  by  the  apostles,  cr 
ought  to  be  esteemed  canonical  Scripture,  but  because  it  is  a 
brief  sum  of  Christian  faith,  agreeable  to  the  word  of  God,  and 
anciently  received  in  the  Churches  of  Christ."  It  was  retained 
by  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
in  the  United  States  as  part  of  our  Catechism.  It  is  a  part  of 
the  Catechism  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  also.  "  It  is 
used  in  the  baptismal  Confession  of  the  Roman,  English,  Re- 
formed, Lutheran,  Methodist  Episcopal,  and  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Churches." 

It  is  as  follows: 

"I  believe  in  God  the  Father  almighty,  maker  of  heaven  and  earth; 
and  in  Jesus  Christ  his  only  Son,  our  Lord  ;  who  was  conceived  by  the 
Holy  Ghost ;  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary;  suffered  under  Pontius  Pilate  ; 
was  crucified,  dead  and  buried  ;  he  descended  into  hell  (Hades) ;  the  third 
day  he  rose  again  from  the  dead,  he  ascended  into  heaven,  and  sitteth 
on  the  right  hand  of  God  the  Father  almighty;  from  thence  he  shall  come 
to  judge  the  quick  and  the  dead.  I  believe  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  holy 
catholic  church,  the  communion  of  saints,  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  the 
resurrection  of  the  body,  and  the  life  everlasting.     Amen." 

II.  The  Nicene  Creed,  in  which  the  true  Trinitarian  faith 
of  the  church  is  accurately  defined  in  opposition  to  Arian  and 
Semiarian  errors.  It  exists  in  three  forms,  and  evidently  was 
moulded  upon  pre-existing  forms  similar  to  those  from  which 
the  Apostles'  Creed  grew. 

1st.  The  original  form  in  which  it  was  composed  and  en- 
acted by  the  (Ecumenical  Council  of  Nice,  a.  d.  325. 

"Wo  believe  in  one  God,  the  Father  Almighty,  Maker  of  all  things 
viaible  and  invisible.  Jt 

"  Ind  in  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  begotten  of  the 


11G  CREEDS   AND    CONFESSIONS. 

Father,  the  only  begotten;  that  is,  of  the  essence  of  the  Father,  God  of 
God,  Light  of  Light,  very  God  of  very  God,  begotten,  not  made,  being 
of  one  substance  (d^ioovdiov)  with  the  Father;  by  whom  all  things  were 
made,  both  in  heaven  and  on  earth ;  who  for  us  men,  and  for  our  salva- 
tion, came  down  and  was  incarnate,  and  was  made  man;  he  suffered,  and 
the  third  day  he  rose  again,  ascended  into  heaven ;  from  thence  he  shall 
come  to  judge  the  quick  and  the  dead. 

"And  in  the  Holy  Ghost. 

"But  those  who  say:  •  There  was  a  time  when  he  was  not; '  and,  •  He 
was  not  before  he  was  made;'  and,  'He  was  made  out  of  nothing,'  or, 
'He  is  of  another  substance'  or  'essence,'  or,  'The  Son  of  God  is 
created'  or  'changeable,'  or  'alterable' — they  are  condemned  by  the 
holy  catholic  and  apostolic  Church." 

2d.  The  Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan  Creed.  This  consists  of 
the  Nicene  Creed,  above  given,  slightly  changed  in  the  first 
article,  and  with  the  clauses  defining  the  Person  and  work  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  added,  and  the  Anathema  omittted.  This  new 
form  of  the  Creed  has  been  generally  attributed  to  the  Council 
of  Constantinople,  convened  by  the  Emperor  Theodosius,  a.  d. 
381,  to  condemn  the  doctrine  of  the  Macedonians,  who  denied 
the  divinity  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  These  changes  in  the  Nicene 
Creed  were  unquestionably  made  about  that  date,  and  the 
several  "  clauses  "  added  existed  previously  in  formularies  pro- 
posed by  individual  theologians.  But  there  is  no  evidence 
that  the  changes  were  made  by  the  Council  of  Constanti- 
nople. They  were,  however,  recognized  by  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon,  a.  d.  451. 

It  is  in  this  latter  form  that  the  Creed  of  Nice  is  now  used 
in  the  Greek  Church. 

3d.  The  third  or  Latin  form  of  this  creed,  in  which  it  is 
used  in  the  Roman,  Episcopal,  and  Lutheran  Churches,  differs 
from  the  second  form  above  mentioned  only  in  (a.)  restoring  the 
clause  ("Deus  de  Deo")  "God  of  God,"  to  the  first  clause;  it 
belonged  to  the  original  Creed  of  Nice,  but  had  been  dropped 
out  of  the  Greek  Nicseno-Constantinopolitan  form,  (b.)  The 
famous  " Filioque"  term  was  added  to  the  clause  affirming  the 
procession  of  the  Spirit  from  the  Father.  This  was  added  by 
the  provincial  Council  of  Toledo,  Spain,  a.  d.  589,  and  gradually 
accepted  by  the  whole  Western  Church,  and  thence  by  all 
Protestants,  without  any  oecumenical  ratification.  That  phrase 
is  rejected  by  the  Greek  Church.  The  text  of  this  Creed  as 
received  with  reverence  by  all  Catholics  and  Protestants  is  as 
follows  (Schaff's  "Creeds  of  Christendom,"  pp.  25-29): 

"I  believe  in  one  God  the  Father  almighty,  maker  of  heaven  and  earth, 
and  of  all  things  visible  and  invisible;  and  in  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  tho 
only  begotten  son  of  God,  begotten  of  his  Father  before  all  worlds;  God 
of  God,  Light  of  Light,  very  God  of  very  God,  begotten  not  made,  being 
of  one  substance  with  the  Father;  by  whom  all  things  were  made;  Who 


THE    ANCIENT   CREEDS.  117 

for  us  men  and  for  our  salvation  came  down  from  heaven,  and  was  incar- 
nate by  the  Holy  Ghost  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  was  made  man;  He  waa 
crucified,  also  for  us,  under  Pontius  Pilate.  He  suffered  and  was  buried; 
and  the  third  day  he  rose  again  according  to  the  Scriptures;  and  ascended 
into  heaven,  and  sitteth  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Father.  And  he  shall 
come  again  with  glory  to  judge  both  the  quick  and  the  dead;  whose  king- 
dom shall  have  no  end.  And  I  believe  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  Lord  and 
Giver  of  life,  who  proceedeth  from  the  Father  and  the  Son  (this  phrase 
"fikoque"  was  added  to  the  creed  of  Constantinople  by  the  council  of 
the  western  church  held  at  Toledo,  a.  d.  589),  who,  with  the  Father 
and  the  Son  together  is  worshipped  and  glorified,  who  spake  by  the 
prophets.  And  I  believe  one  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church,  I  acknowl- 
edge one  baptism  for  the  remission  of  sins;  and  I  look  for  the  resurrection 
of  the  dead,  and  the  life  of  the  world  to  come. " 

III.  The  Athanasian  Creed,  so  called,  also  styled,  from  its 
opening  words,  the  symbol  Quicunque  vult,  is  vulgarly  ascribed 
to  the  great  Athanasius,  bishop  of  Alexandria,  from  about 
a.  d.  328  to  a.  d.  373,  and  the  leader  of  the  orthodox  party 
in  the  church  in  opposition  to  the  arch  heretic,  Arius.  But 
modern  scholars  unanimously  assign  to  it  a  later  origin,  and 
trace  it  to  Northern  Africa  and  the  school  of  Augustine.  Big- 
ham  refers  it  to  Virgilius  Tapsensis  at  the  end  of  the  fifth  cen- 
tury. Schaff  says  its  complete  form  does  not  appear  before  the 
end  of  the  eighth  century. 

This  Creed  is  received  in  the  Greek,  Eoman,  and  English 
Churches,  but  it  has  been  left  out  of  the  Prayer  Book  of  the 
Episcopal  Church  of  America.  It  presents  a  most  admirably 
stated  exposition  of  the  faith  of  all  Christians,  and  it  is  objected 
to  only  because  of  the  "  damnatory  clauses,"  which  ought  never 
to  be  attached  to  any  human  composition,  especially  one  mak- 
ing such  nice  distinctions  upon  so  profound  a  subject. 

It  is  as  follows : 

"1.  Whosoever  wishes  to  be  saved,  it  is  above  all  necessary  for  him 
to  hold  the  Catholic  faith.  2.  Which,  unless  each  one  shall  preserve 
perfect  and  inviolate,  he  shall  certainly  perish  for  ever.  3.  But  the 
Catholic  faith  is  this,  that  we  worship  one  God  in  trinity,  and  trinity  in 
unity.  4.  Neither  confounding  the  persons,  nor  separating  the  sub- 
stance. 5.  For  the  person  of  the  Father  is  one,  of  the  Son  another, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  another.  6.  But  of  the  Father,  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  there  is  one  divinity,  equal  glory  and  co-eternal 
majesty.  7.  What  the  Father  is,  the  same  is  the  Son,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost.  8.  The  Father  is  uncreated,  the  Son  uncreated,  the  Holy  Ghost 
uncreated.  9.  The  Father  is  immense,  the  Son  immense,  the  Holy 
Ghost  immense.  10.  The  Father  is  eternal,  the  Son  eternal,  the  Holy 
Ghost  eternal.  11.  And  yet  there  are  not  three  eternals,  but  one  eternal. 
12.  So  there  are  not  three  (beings)  uncreated,  nor  three  immense,  but 
one  uncreated,  and  one  immense.  13.  In  like  manner  the  Father  i» 
omnipotent,   the   Son  is  omnipotent,   the   Holy  Ghost  is  omnipotent 

14.  And  yet   there   are  not   three  omnipotents,   but  one  omnipotent. 

15.  Thus  the  Father  is  God,  the  Son  is  God,  the  Holy  Ghost  is  GotL 


118  CREEDS   AND    CONFESSIONS. 

16.  And  yet  there  are  not  three  Gods,  but  one  "God.  17.  Thus  the 
Father  is  Lord,  the  Son  is  Lord,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  is  Lord.  18.  And 
yet  there  are  not  three  Lords,  but  one  Lord.  19.  Because  as  we  are 
thus  compelled  by  Christian  veiity  to  confess  each  person  severally  to 
be  God  and  Lord;  so  we  are  prohibited  by  the  Catholic  religion  from 
saying  that  there  are  three  Gods  or  Lords.  20.  The  Father  was  made 
from  none,  nor  created,  nor  begotten.  21.  The  Son  is  from  the  Father 
alone,  neither  made,  nor  created,  but  begotten.  22.  The  Holy  Ghost  ia 
from  the  Father  and  the  Son,  neither  made,  nor  created,  nor  begotten, 
but  proceeding.  23.  Therefore  there  is  one  Father,  not  three  fathers, 
one  Son,  not  three  sons,  one  Holy  Ghost,  not  three  Holy  Ghosts,  24.  And 
in  this  trinity  no  one  is  first  or  last,  no  one  is  greater  or  less.  25.  But 
all  the  three  co-eternal  persons  are  co-equal  among  themselves;  so  that 
through  all,  as  is  above  said,  both  unity  in  trinity,  and  trinity  in  unity 
is  to  be  worshipped.  26.  Therefore,  he  who  wishes  to  be  saved  must 
think  thus  concerning  the  trinity.  27.  But  it  is  necessary  to  eternal 
salvation  that  he  should  also  faithfully  believe  the  incarnation  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Chmst.  28.  It  is,  therefore,  true  faith  that  we  believe  and 
confess  that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  both  God  and  man.  29.  He  is 
God,  generated  from  eternity  from  the  substance  of  the  Father;  man, 
born  in  time  from  the  substance  of  his  mother.  30.  Perfect  God,  per- 
fect man,  subsisting  of  a  rational  soul  and  human  flesh.  31.  Equal  to 
the  Father  in  respect  to  his  divinity,  less  than  the  Father  in  respect  to 
his  humanity.  32.  Who,  although  he  is  God  and  man,  is  not  two  but 
one  Christ.  33.  But  one,  not  from  the  conversion  of  his  divinity  into 
flesh,  but  from  the  assumption  of  his  humanity  into  God.  34.  One  not 
at  all  from  confusion  of  substance,  but  from  unity  of  person.  35.  For 
as  a  rational  soul  and  flesh  is  one  man,  so  God  and  man  is  one  Christ. 
36.  Who  suffered  for  our  salvation,  descended  into  hell,  the  third  day 
rose  from  the  dead.  37.  Ascended  to  heaven,  sitteth  at  the  right  hand 
of  God  the  Father  omnipotent,  whence  he  shall  come  to  judge  the  living 
and  the  dead.  38.  At  whose  coming  all  men  shall  rise  again  with  their 
bodies,  and  shall  render  an  account  for  their  own  works.  39.  And  they 
who  have  done  well  shall  go  into  fife  eternal;  they  who  have  done  evil 
into  eternal  fire.  40.  This  is  the  Catholic  faith,  which,  unless  a  man 
shall  faithfully  and  firmly  believe,  he  can  not  be  saved." 

IV.  The  Creed  of  Chalcedon.  The  Emperor  Marciaims 
called  the  fourth  oecumenical  council  to  meet  at  Chalcedon 
in  Bithynia,  on  the  Bosphorus,  opposite  Constantinople,  to  put 
down  the  Eutychian  and  Nestorian  heresies.  The  Council  con- 
sisted of  630  bishops  and  sat  from  Oct.  8  to  Oct.  31,  a.  d.  451. 

The  principal  part  of  the  "Definition  of  Faith"  agreed  upon 
by  this  Council  is  as  follows: 

"We,  then,  following  the  holy  Fathers,  all  with  one  consent,  teach 
men  to  confess,  one  and  the  same  Son,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ;  the  same 
perfect  in  Godhead  and  also  perfect  in  Manhood;  truly  God,  and  truly 
Man,  of  a  reasonable  soul  and  body;  consubstantial  with  the  Father  ac- 
cording to  the  Godhead,  and  consubstantial  with  us  according  to  the 
Manhood ;  in  all  things  like  unto  us  without  sin  ;  begotten  before  all 
ages  of  the  Father  according  to  the  Godhead,  and  in  these  latter  days, 
for  us  and  for  our  salvation,  born  of  Mary  the  Virgin  Mother  of  God 
according  to  the  Manhood.     He  is  one  and  the  same  Christ,  Son,  Lord, 


CONFESSIONS    OF  ROMAN   CHURCH.  119 

Only -begotten,  existing  in  two  natures  ■without  mixture  [dtivyxvroos)) 
without  change  (drpsTCTGoi),  "without  division  (dSiaipsrGoi),  without 
separation  (dxoopidrooi);  the  diversity  of  the  two  natures  not  being  at 
all  destroyed  by  their  union,  but  the  peculiar  properties  of  each  nature 
being  preserved,  and  concurring  to  one  person  and  one  subsistence,  not 

Earted  or  divided  into  two  persons,  but  one  and  the  same  Son,  and  Only- 
ego  tten,  God  the  Word,  the  Lord.  Jesus  Christ;  as  the  prophets  from 
the  beginning  have  declared  concerning  Him,  and  as  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  Himself  hath  taught  us,  and  as  the  Creed  of  the  holy  fathers  has 
delivered  to  us. " 

This  completed  the  development  of  the  orthodox  Church 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  of  Persons  in  the  one  God,  and  of  the 
duality  of  natures  in  the  one  Christ.  It  remains  a  universally 
respected  statement  of  the  common  faith  of  the  Church. 

5.  Wliat  are  tJie  doctrinal  Standards  of  the  Church  of  Home  ? 

Besides  the  above  mentioned  Creeds,  all  ot  which  are  of 
recognized  authority  in  the  Romish  Church,  their  great  Stand- 
ards of  Faith  are — 1st.  The  "Ca?ions  and  Decrees  of  tlw  Council  of 
Trent"  which  they  regard  as  the  twentieth  oecumenical  council, 
and  was  called  by  Pope  Pius  IV.  to  oppose  the  progress  of  the 
Reformation  (a.  d.  1545-1563).  The  decrees  contain  the  pos- 
itive statements  of  Papal  doctrine.  The  canons  explain  the 
decrees,  distribute  the  matter  under  brief  heads,  and  condemn 
the  opposing  doctrine  on  each  point.  Although  studiously  am- 
biguous, the  system  of  doctrine  taught  is  evidently  though  not 
consistently  Semipelagian. 

2d.  The  "Roman  Catechism"  which  explains  and  enforces 
the  canons  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  was  prepared  by  order  of 
Pius  IV.  and  promulgated  by  the  authority  of  Pope  Pius  V., 
a.  d.  1566. 

3d.  The  "Creed  of  Pope  Pius  IV."  also  called  "Professio 
Fidei  Tridentinxv"  or  "Forma  Professionis  Fidei  Catholicce"  con- 
tains a  summary  of  the  doctrines  taught  in  the  Canons  and 
Decrees  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  and  was  promulgated  in  a 
bull  by  Pope  Pius  IV.,  a.  d.  1564.  It  is  subscribed  to  by  all 
grades  of  Papal  teachers  and  ecclesiastics,  and  by  all  converts 
from  Protestantism. 

It  is  as  follows:  %; 

"I,  A.  B.,  believe  and  profess  with  a  firm  faith  all  and  every  one 
of  the  things  which  are  contained  in  the  symbol  of  faith  which  is  used 
in  the  holy  Roman  Church;  namely,  I  believe  in  one  God  the  Father 
Almighty,  Maker  of  heaven  and  earth,  and  of  all  things  visible  and  invis- 
ible; and  in  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  only -begotten  Son  of  God,  be- 
gotten of  the  Father  before  all  worlds;  God  of  God,  Light  of  Light,  very 
God  of  very  God,  begotten,  not  made,  consubstantial  with  the  Father, 
by  whom  all  things  were  made;  who  for  us  men  and  for  our  salvation 


120  CREEDS   AND    CONFESSIONS. 

carne  down  from  heaven,  and  was  incarnate  by  the  Holy  Ghost  of  the 
Virgin  Mary,  and  was  made  man;  was  crucified  for  lis  under  Pontius 
Pilate,  suffered  and  was  buried,  and  rose  again  the  third  day  according 
to  the  Scriptures,  and  ascended  into  heaven,  sits  at  the  right  hand  of 
the  Father,  and  will  come  again  with  glory  to  judge  the  living  and  the 
dead,  of  whose  kingdom  there  will  be  no  end;  and  in  the  Holy  Ghost, 
the  Lord  and  Life-giver,  who  proceeds  from  the  Father  and  the  Son, 
who,  together  with  the  Father  and  the  Son,  is  adored  and  glorified,  who 
spake  by  the  holy  prophets;  and  one  holy  catholic  and  apostolic  Church. 
I  confess  one  baptism  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  I  expect  the  resur- 
rection of  the  dead,  and  the  life  of  the  world  to  come.     Amen. 

"I  most  firmly  admit  and  embrace  the  apostolic  and  ecclesiastical 
traditions,  and  all  other  constitutions  and  observances  of  the  same  Church. 
I  also  admit  the  sacred  Scriptures  according  to  the  sense  which  the  holy 
mother  Church  has  held  and  does  hold,  to  whom  it  belongs  to  judge 
of  the  true  sense  and  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures;  nor  will  I  ever 
take  or  interpret  them  otherwise  than  according  to  the  unanimous 
consent  of  the  fathers.  I  profess,  also,  that  there  are  truly  and  properly 
seven  sacraments  of  the  new  law,  instituted  by  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord, 
and  necessary  for  the  salvation  of  mankind,  though  all  are  not  neces- 
sary for  every  one — namely  baptism,  confirmation,  eucharist,  penance, 
extreme  unction,  orders,  and  matrimony,  and  that  they  confer  grace; 
and  of  these,  baptism,  confirmation,  and  order  can  not  be  reiterated 
without  sacrilege.  I  do  also  receive  and  admit  the  ceremonies  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  received  and  approved  in  the  solemn  administration 
of  all  the  above-said  sacraments.  I  receive  and  embrace  all  and  eveiy 
one  of  the  things  which  have  been  defined  and  declared  in  the  holy 
Council  of  Trent  concerning  sin  and  justification.  I  profess  likewise 
that  in  the  mass  is  offered  to  God  a  true,  proper,  and  propitiatory  sacri- 
fice for  the  living  and  the  dead;  and  that  in  the  most  holy  sacrament  of 
the  eucharist  there  is  truly,  really,  and  substantially  the  body  and  blood, 
together  with  the  soul  and  divinity  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  that 
there  is  made  a  conversion  of  the  whole  substance  of  the  bread  into  the 
body,  and  of  the  whole  substance  of  the  wine  into  the  blood,  which 
conversion  the  Catholic  Church  calls  transubstantiation.  I  confess,  also, 
that  under  either  kind  alone,  Christ  whole  and  entire,  and  a  true  sacra- 
ment is  received.  I  constantly  hold  that  there  is  a  purgatory,  and  that 
the  souls  detained  therein  are  helped  by  the  suffrages  of  the  faithful. 
Likewise  that  the  saints  reigning  together  with  Christ  are  to  be  honored 
and  invoked,  that  they  offer  prayers  to  God  for  us,  and  that  their  relics 
are  to  be  venerated.  I  most  firmly  assert  that  the  images  of  Christ,  and 
of  the  mother  of  God  ever  Virgin,  and  also  of  the  other  saints,  are  to  be 
had  and  retained,  and  that  due  honor  and  veneration  are  to  be  given  to 
them.  I  also  affirm  that  the  power  of  indulgences  was  left  by  Christ  in 
the  Church,  and  that  the  use  of  them  is  most  wholesome  to  Christian 
people.  I  acknowledge  the  Holy  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church,  the 
mother  and  mistress  of  all  churches;  and  I  promise  and  swear  true  obe- 
dience to  the  Roman  bishop,  the  successor  of  St.  Peter,  prince  of  the 
apostles,  and  vicar  of  Jesus  Christ.  I  also  profess,  and  undoubtedly 
receive  all  other  things  delivered,  defined,  and  declared  by  the  sacred 
canons  and  general  councils,  and  particularly  by  the  holy  Council  of 
Trent  [and  by  the  Oecumenical  Vatican  Council  delivered,  defined,  and 
declared,  particularly  concerning  the  primacy  and  infallible  rule  of  the 
Koman  Pontiff*] 

*  Added  by  Decree  of  the  "  Sacred  Congregation  of  the  Council,"  Jan.  2,  1877. 


CONFESSIONS    OF  ROMAN  AND    GREEK  CHURCHES.    121 

"And  likewise  I  also  condemn,  reject,  and  anathematize  all  things 
contrary  thereto,  and  all  heresies  whatsoever  condemned,  rejected  and 
anathematized  by  the  Church.  This  true  Catholic  faith,  out  of  which 
none  can  be  saved,  which  I  now  freely  profess  and  truly  hold,  I.,  A.  B., 
promise,  vow  and  swear  most  constantly  to  hold,  and  profess  the  same 
whole  and  entire,  with  God's  assistance,  to  the  end  of  my  life;  and  to 
procure  as  far  as  lies  in  my  power,  that  the  same  shall  be  held,  taught 
and  preached  by  all  who  are  under  me,  or  who  are  intrusted  to  my  care, 
in  virtue  of  my  office,  so  help  me  God,  and  these  holy  gospels  of  God 
— Amen." 

4th.  The  Holy  (Ecumenical  Vatican  Council  assembled  at 
the  call  of  Pius  IX.  in  the  Basilica  of  the  Vatican,  Dec.  8,  1869, 
and  continued  its  sessions  until  October  20,  1870,  after  which 
it  was  indefinitely  postponed. 

The  Decrees  of  this  Council  embrace  two  sections. 

I.  "  The  Dogmatic  Constitution  on  the  Catholic  Faith." 
This  embraces  four  chapters.  Chap.  1  treats  of  God  as  Cre- 
ator ;  chap.  2,  of  revelation ;  chap.  3,  of  faith ;  chap.  4,  of  faith 
and  reason.  These  are  followed  by  eighteen  canons,  in  which 
the  errors  of  modern  rationalism  and  infidelity  are  condemned. 

II.  "First  Dogmatic  Constitution  on  the  Church  of  Christ." 
This  also  embraces  four  chapters.  Chap.  1  is  entitled  "Of  the 
Institution  of  the  Apostolic  Primacy  in  Blessed  Peter ; "  chap.  2, 
"  Of  the  Perpetuity  of  the  Primacy  of  Blessed  Peter  in  the  Ro- 
man Pontiffs;"  chap.  3,  "On  the  Power  and  Nature  of  the 
Primacy  of  the  Roman  Pontiff; "  chap.  4,  "  Concerning  the  In- 
fallible Teaching  of  the  Roman  Pontiff."  "The  new  features 
are  contained  in  the  last  two  chapters,  which  teach  Papal  Abso- 
lutism, and  Papal  Infallibility."  These  definitions  are  presented 
to  a  sufficient  extent  under  Chapter  V.  of  these  "Outlines." 

In  consequence  of  this  principle  of  Papal  Infallibility  it  nec- 
essarily follows,  that  the  whole  succession  of  Papal  Bulls,  and 
especially  those  directed  against  the  Jansenists  and  the  Decree 
of  Pius  IX.  "On  the  Immaculate  Conception  of  the  Blessed 
Virgin  Mary,"  Dec.  8,  1854;  and  his  Syllabus  of  Errors,  Dec. 
8,  1864,  are  all  infallible  and  irreformable  and  parts  of  the 
amazing  Standards  of  Faith  professed  by  the  Roman  Church. 

6.    What  are  tJie  Doctrinal  Standards  of  the  Gh^eek  Church  ? 

The  ancient  church  divided,  from  causes  primarily  political 
and  ecclesiastical,  secondarily  doctrinal  and  ritual,  into  two 
great  sections — the  Eastern  or  Greek  Church,  and  the  West- 
ern or  Latin  Church.  This  division  began  to  culminate  in  the 
seventh,  and  was  consummated  in  the  eleventh  century.  The 
Greek  Church  embraces  about  eighty  millions  of  people,  the  ^j 
majority  of  the  Christians  inhabitants  of  the  Turkish  Empire,  /\ 
and  the  national  churches  of  Greece  and  Russia.     All  the  Profc 


122  CREEDS   AND    CONFESSIONS. 

estant  Churches  have  originated  from  the  Western  or  Latin 
division  of  the  church. 

She  arrogates  to  herself,  pre-eminently,  the  title  of  "  Ortho- 
dox," because  the  original  oecumenical  Creeds  defining  the 
doctrines  of  the  Trinity  and  the  Person  of  Christ  were  pro- 
duced in  the  Eastern  division  of  the  ancient  church  and  in  the 
Greek  language,  and  hence  are  in  a  special  sense  her  inheri- 
tance, and  because  from  the  fact  that  her  theology  is  absolutely 
unprogressive,  she  contents  herself  with  the  literal  repetition  of 
the  old  formulas. 

She  adheres  to  the  ancient  Creeds  and  doctrinal  decisions 
of  the  first  seven  oecumenical  councils,  and  possesses  a  few 
modern  Confessions  and  Catechisms.  The  most  important  of 
these  are — 

1st.  The  "Orthodox  Confession  of  the  Catholic  and  Apostolic 
Greek  Church,"  composed  by  Peter  Mogilas,  Metropolitan  of 
Kieff  in  Russia,  a.  d.  1643,  and  approved  by  all  the  Eastern 
Patriarchs. 

2d.  The  "Decrees  of  the  Synod  of  Jerusalem,"  or  the  Con- 
fession of  Dositheus,  1672. 

3d.  The  Russian  Catechisms  which  have  the  sanction  of  the 
Holy  Synod,  especially  the  Longer  Catechism  of  Philaret,  Met- 
ropolitan of  Moscow,  1820-1867,  unanimously  approved  by  all 
the  Eastern  Patriarchs,  and  since  1839  generally  used  in  the 
schools  and  churches  of  Russia. 

The  Decrees  of  the  Synod  of  Jerusalem  teach  substantially 
though  less  definitely  the  same  doctrine  as  those  of  the  Council 
of  Trent  as  to  the  Scriptures  and  Tradition,  good  works  and 
faith,  justification,  the  sacraments,  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass, 
the  worship  of  saints,  and  purgatory. 

The  Catechism  of  Philaret  "  approaches  more  nearly  to  the 
evangelical  principle  of  the  supremacy  of  the  Bible  in  matters 
of  Christian  faith  and  life  than  any  other  deliverance  of  the 
Eastern  Church."— Schaffs  "Creeds  of  Christendom,"  Vol.  I., 
pp.  45  and  71. 

7.  What  are  the  Doctrinal  Standards  of  the  Lutheran  Church? 

Besides  the  great  General  Creeds  which  they  receive  in 
common  with  all  Christians  their  Symbolical  Books  are — 

1st.  The  Augsburg  Confession,  the  joint  authors  of  which 
were  Luther  and  Melanchthon.  Having  been  signed  by  the 
Protestant  princes  and  leaders,  it  was  presented  to  the  em- 
peror and  imperial  diet  in  Augsburg,  a.  d.  1530.  It  is  the 
oldest  Protestant  Confession,  the  ultimate  basis  of  Lutheran 
theology,  and  the  only  universally  accepted  standard  of  the 
Lutheran  Churches.     It  consists  of  two  grand  divisions.     The 


LUTHERAN   CONFESSIONS.  123 

first  embracing  twenty-one  articles,  presents  a  positive  state- 
ment of  Christian  doctrines  as  the  Lutherans  understand  them ; 
and  the  second,  embracing  seven  articles,  condemns  the  prin- 
cipal characteristic  errors  of  the  Papacy.  It  is  evangelical  in 
the  Augustinian  sense,  although  not  as  precise  in  statement  as 
the  more  perfect  Calvinistic  Confessions,  and  it,  of  course,  con- 
tains the  germs  of  the  peculiar  Lutheran  views  as  to  the  neces- 
sity of  the  Sacraments,  and  the  relation  of  the  sacramental 
signs  to  the  grace  they  signify.  Yet  these  peculiarities  are  so 
far  from  being  explicitly  stated,  that  Calvin  found  it  consistent 
■with  his  views  of  divine  truth  to  subscribe  this  great  Confes- 
sion during  his  residence  in  Strasburg. 

In  1540,  ten  years  after  it  had  been  adopted  as  the  public 
symbol  of  Protestant  Germany,  Melanchthon  produced  an  edi- 
tion in  Latin  which  he  altered  in  several  particulars,  and  which 
was  hence  distinguished  as  the  Variata,  the  original  and  only 
authentic  form  of  the  Confession  being  distinguished  as  the 
Invariata.  The  principal  changes  introduced  in  this  edition 
incline  towards  Synergistic  or  Arminian  views  of  divine  grace 
on  the  one  hand,  and  on  the  other  to  simple  views  as  to  the 
sacraments  more  nearly  corresponding  with  those  prevailing 
among  the  Reformed  Churches. — See  Shedd's  "Hist,  of  Christ. 
Doctrine,"  Book  vii.,  chap.  2.  See  also  the  accurate  and  learn- 
edly illustrated  edition  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  by  Rev. 
Charles  Krauth,  D.D. 

2d.  The  Apology  (Defence)  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  pre- 
pared by  Melanchthon,  a.  d.  1530,  and  subscribed  by  the  Pro- 
testant theologians,  a.  d.  1537,  at  Smalcald. 

3d.  The  Larger  and  Smaller  Catechisms  prepared  by  Luther, 
a.  d.  1529,  "  the  first  for  the  use  of  preachers  and  teachers,  the 
last  as  a  guide  for  youth." 

4th.  The  Articles  of  Smalcald,  drawn  up  by  Luther,  a.  d. 
1536,  and  inscribed  by  the  evangelical  theologians  in  February, 
a.  d.  1537,  at  the  place  whose  name  they  bear. 

5th.  The  Formtda  Concordiai  (Form  of  Concord),  prepared 
in  a.  d.  1577  by  Jacob  Andreae  and  Martin  Chemnitz  and 
others  for  the  purpose  of  settling  certain  controversies  which 
had  sprung  up  in  the  Lutheran  Church,  especially  (a)  concern- 
ing the  relative  action  of  divine  grace  and  the  human  will  in 
regeneration,  (b)  concerning  the  nature  of  the  Lord's  presence 
in  the  Eucharist.  This  Confession  contains  a  more  scientific 
and  thoroughly  developed  statement  of  the  Lutheran  doctrine 
than  can  be  found  in  any  other  of  their  public  symbols.  Its 
authority  is,  however,  acknowledged  only  by  the  high  Lu- 
theran party,  that  is,  by  that  party  in  the  church  which  con- 
sistently carries  the  peculiarities  of  Lutheran  theology  out  tc 


124  CREEDS   AND    CONFESSIONS. 

the  most  complete  logical  development.  All  these  Lutheran 
Symbols  may  be  found  in  Latin  accurately  edited  in  "  Libri 
Symbolici,"  by  Dr.  C.  A.  Hase,  Leipsic,  1836,  and  in  SchafFa 
"Creeds  of  Christendom." 

8.  What  are  the  principal  Confessions  of  the  Reformed  or  Cab 
vinistic  Churches  ? 

The  Confessions  of  the  Reformed  Churches  are  very  consid- 
erable in  number,  and  vary  somewhat  in  character,  although 
they  substantially  agree  in  the  system  of  doctrines  they  teach. 

1st.  "The  oldest  Confession  of  that  branch  of  Protestantism 
which  was  not  satisfied  with  the  Lutheran  tendency  and  sym- 
bol is  the  Confessio  Tetrapolitana, — so-called,  because  the  theo- 
logians of  four  cities  of  upper  Germany,  Strasburg,  Constance, 
Memmingen,  and  Lindau,  drew  it  up,  and  presented  it  to  the 
emperor  at  the  same  diet  of  Augsburg,  in  1530,  at  which  the 
first  Lutheran  symbol  was  presented.  The  principal  theolo- 
gian concerned  in  its  construction  was  Martin  Bucer,  of  Stras- 
burg. It  consists  of  twenty-two  articles,  and  agrees  generally 
with  the  Augsburg  Confession.  The  points  of  difference  per- 
tain to  the  doctrine  of  the  sacraments.  Upon  this  subject 
it  is  Zwinglian.  These  four  cities,  however,  in  1532  adopted 
the  Augsburg  Confession,  so  that  the  Confessio  Tetrapolitana 
ceased  to  be  the  formally  adopted  symbol  of  any  branch  of  the 
church." — Shedd's  "Hist,  of  Christ.  Doctrine,"  Book  vii.,  chap.  2. 

2d.  The  Reformed  Confessions  of  the  highest  authority 
among  the  churches  are  the  following: 

(1.)  The  Second  Helvetic  Confession,  prepared  by  Bullinger, 
a.  d.  1564,  and  published  1566,  superseded  the  First  Helvetic 
Confession  of  a.  d.  1536.  It  was  adopted  by  all  the  Reformed 
Churches  in  Switzerland  with  the  exception  of  Basle  (which 
was  content  with  the  old  Confession)  and  by  the  Reformed 
Churches  in  Poland,  Hungary,  Scotland  and  France,  and  it  has 
always  been  esteemed  as  of  the  highest  authority  by  all  the 
Reformed  Churches. 

(2.)  The  Heidelberg  Catechism,  prepared  by  Ursinus  and  Ole- 
vianus  a.  d.  1562.  It  was  established  by  civil  authority  as  the 
doctrinal  standard  as  well  as  the  instrument  of  religious  in- 
struction for  the  churches  of  the  Palatinate,  a  German  state  at 
that  time  including  both  banks  of  the  Rhine.  It  was  indorsed 
by  the  Synod  of  Dort,  and  is  a  doctrinal  standard  of  the  Re- 
formed Churches  of  Germany  and  Holland,  and  of  the  [German 
and  Dutch]  Reformed  Churches  in  America.  It  was  used  for 
the  instruction  of  children  in  Scotland,  before  the  adoption  of 
the  Catechisms  of  the  Westminster  Assembly,  and  its  use  was 
sanctioned  by  an  unanimous  vote  of  the  first  General  Assembly 


REFORMED    CONFESSIONS.  125 

of  the  reunited  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  a.  d. 
1870.— See  Minutes. 

(3.)  TJie  Thirty-nine  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England.  In 
1552,  Cranmer,  with  the  advice  of  other  bishops,  drew  up  the 
Fortij-tivo  Articles  of  Beligion,  and  which  were  published  by 
royal  authority  in  1553.  These  were  revised  and  reduced  to 
the  number  of  thirty-nine  by  Archbishop  Parker  and  other 
bishops,  and  ratified  by  both  houses  of  Convocation,  and  pub- 
lished by  royal  authority  in  1563.  They  constitute  the  doc- 
trinal standard  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Churches  of  Eng- 
land, Ireland,  Scotland,  the  Colonies,  and  the  United  States  of 
America.  The  question  whether  these  Articles  are  Calvinistic 
or  not  has  been  very  unwarrantably  made  a  matter  of  debate. 
See  Lawrence's  "  Bampton  Lecture  "  for  1804  on  the  Arminian 
side,  and  Toplady's  "Doctrinal  Calvinism  of  the  Church  of 
England,"  Dr.  Goode's  "  Doctrine  of  Church  of  England  as  to 
Effects  of  Infant  Baptism,"  and  Dr.  William  Cunningham's 
"  Eeformers  and  their  Theology,"  on  the  Calvinistic  side.  The 
seventeenth  Article  on  Predestination  is  perfectly  decisive  of 
the  question,  and  is  as  follows : 

"Predestination  to  life  is  the  everlasting  purpose  of  God,  whereby 
(before  the  foundations  of  the  world  were  laid)  he  hath  constantly  decreed 
by  his  counsel,  secret  to  us,  to  deliver  from  curse  and  damnation  those 
whom  he  hath  chosen  in  Christ  out  of  mankind,  and  to  bring  them  by 
Christ  to  everlasting  salvation,  as  vessels  made  to  honor.  Wherefore 
they  which  he  endued  with  so  excellent  a  benefit  of  God,  he  called 
according  to  God's  purpose  by  his  Spirit  working  in  due  season:  they, 
through  grace,  obey  the  calling;  they  he  justified  freely;  they  he  made 
sons  of  God  by  adoption;  they  he  made  like  the  image  of  his  only  be- 
gotten Son,  Jesus  Christ;  they  walk  religiously  in  good  works,  and  at 
length,  by  God's  mercy,  they  attain  to  everlasting  felicity. 

"As  the  godly  consideration  of  predestination  and  our  election  in 
Christ  is  full  of  sweet,  pleasant,  and  unspeakable  comfort  to  godly  per- 
sons, and  such  as  feel  in  themselves  the  working  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ, 
mortifying  the  works  of  the  flesh  and  their  earthly  members,  and  draw- 
ing up  their  mind  to  high  and  heavenly  things,  as  well  because  it  doth 
greatly  establish  and  confirm  their  faith  of  eternal  salvation  to  be  enjoyed 
through  Christ,  as  because  it  doth  fervently  kindle  their  love  toward  God. 
So,  for  curious  and  carnal  persons,  lacking  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  to  have 
continually  before  their  eyes  the  sentence  of  God's  predestination,  is  a 
most  dangerous  downfall,  whereby  the  devil  doth  thrust  them  either  into 
desperation,  or  into  wretchedness  of  most  unclean  living,  no  less  perilous 
than  desperation. 

"Furthermore,  we  must  receive  God's  promises  in  such  wise  as  they 
be  generally  set  forth  to  us  in  Holy  Scripture;  and,  in  our  doings,  that 
will  of  God  is  to  be  followed  which  we  have  expressly  declared  unto  us 
in  the  word  of  God. " 

These  Articles  purged  of  their  Calvinism  and  reduced  in 
number  to  twenty-five,  including  a  new  political  Article  (the 


126  CREEDS   AND    CONFESSIONS. 

twenty-third)  adopting  as  an  article  of  faith  the  political  system 
of  the  United  States  Government,  constitute  the  doctrinal  Stand- 
ard of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  America. 

(4.)  The  Canons  of  the  Synod  of  Dort.  This  famous  Synod 
was  convened  in  Dort,  Holland,  by  the  authority  of  the  States 
General,  for  the  purpose  of  settling  the  questions  brought  into 
controversy  by  the  disciples  of  Arminius.  Its  sessions  contin- 
ued from  Nov.  13,  a.  d.  1618,  to  May  9,  a.  d.  1619.  It  consisted 
of  pastors,  elders,  and  theological  professors  from  the  churches 
of  Holland,  and  deputies  from  the  churches  of  England,  Scot- 
land, Hesse,  Bremen,  the  Palatinate,  and  Switzerland.  The 
Canons  of  this  Synod  were  received  by  all  the  Reformed 
Churches  as  a  true,  accurate,  and  eminently  authoritative  ex- 
nibition  of  the  Calvinistic  system  of  theology.  They  consti- 
tute in  connection  with  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  the  doc- 
trinal Confession  of  the  Reformed  Church  of  Holland  and  ot 
its  daughter  the  [Dutch]  Reformed  Church  in  America. 

(5.)  The  Confession  and  Catechisms  of  the  Westminster  Assent- 
bly.  This  Assembly  of  Divines  was  convened  by  an  act  of  the 
Long  Parliament  passed  June  12,  1643.  The  original  call  em- 
braced ten  lords  and  twenty  commoners  as  lay  members,  and 
one  hundred  and-  twenty-one  divines — twenty  ministers  being 
afterward  added — all  shades  of  opinion  as  to  Church  Govern- 
ment being  represented.  The  body  continued  its  sessions  from 
1st  of  July,  1643,  to  22d  of  February,  1649.  The  Confession 
and  Catechisms  they  produced  were  immediately  adopted  by 
the  General  Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scotland.  The  Con- 
gregational Convention,  also,  called  by  Cromwell  to  meet  at 
Savoy,  in  London,  a.  d.  1658,  declared  their  approval  of  the 
doctrinal  part  of  the  Confession  and  Catechisms  of  the  West- 
minster Assembly,  and  conformed  their  own  deliverance,  the 
Savoy  Declaration,  very  nearly  to  it.  Indeed  "the  difference 
between  these  two  Confessions  is  so  very  small,  that  the  mod- 
ern Independents  have  in  a  manner  laid  aside  the  use  of  it 
(Savoy  Declaration)  in  their  families,  and  agreed  with  the 
Presbyterians  in  the  use  of  the  Assembly's  Catechisms." — Neal, 
"Puritans,"  II.,  178.  This  Confession  together  with  the  Larger 
and  Smaller  Catechisms  is  the  doctrinal  standard  of  all  the 
Presbyterian  bodies  in  the  world  of  English  and  Scotch  deri- 
vation. It  is  also  of  all  Creeds  the  one  most  highly  approved 
by  all  bodies  of  Congregationalists  in  England  and  America. 

All  of  the  Assemblies  convened  in  New  England  for  the 
purpose  of  settling  the  doctrinal  basis  of  their  churches  have 
either  indorsed  or  explicitly  adopted  this  Confession  and  these 
Catechisms  as  accurate  expositions  of  their  own  faith.  This 
was  done  bv  the  Synod  which  met  at  Cambridge,  Massachu- 


REFORMED    CONFESSIONS.  127 

setts,  June,  1647,  and  again  August,  1648,  and  prepared  the 
Cambridge  Platform.  And  it  was  done  again  by  the  Synod 
which  sat  in  Boston,  September,  1679,  and  May,  1680,  and  pro- 
duced the  Boston  Confession.  And  again  by  the  Synod  which 
met  at  Saybrook,  Connecticut,  1708,  and  produced  the  Say- 
brook  Platform. 

3d.  There  remain  several  other  Reformed  Confessions,  which, 
although  they  are  not  the  doctrinal  standards  of  large  denomi- 
nations of  Christians,  are  nevertheless  of  high  classical  interest 
and  authority  because  of  their  authors,  and  the  circumstances 
under  which  they  originated. 

(1.)  The  '■'■Consensus  Tigurinus"  or  the  "Consensus  of  Zurich" 
or  "The  mutual  consent  with  respect  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
sacrament  of  the  ministers  of  the  Church  of  Zurich  and  John 
Calvin,  minister  of  the  Church  of  Geneva."  It  consisted  of 
twenty-six  Articles,  and  deals  exclusively  with  the  questions 
relating  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  it  was  drawn  by  Calvin, 
a.  d.  1549,  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  about  a  mutual  consent 
among  all  parties  in  the  Reformed  Church  on  the  subject  of 
which  it  treats.  It  was  subscribed  by  the  Churches  of  Zurich, 
Geneva,  St.  Gall,  Schaffhausen,  the  Grisons,  Neuchatel,  and 
Basle,  and  was  received  with  favor  by  all  parts  of  the  Re- 
formed Church,  and  remains  an  eminent  monument  of  the 
true  mind  of  the  Reformed  Church  upon  this  so  much  debated 
question;  and  especially  it  is  of  value  as  setting  forth  with 
eminent  clearness  and  unquestionable  authority  the  real  opin- 
ions of  Calvin  on  the  subject,  deliberately  stated  after  he  had 
ceased  from  the  vain  attempt  to  secure  the  unity  of  Protestant- 
ism by  a  compromise  with  the  Lutheran  views  as  to  the  Lord's 
presence  in  the  Eucharist.  An  accurate  translation  of  this  im- 
portant document  will  be  found  in  the  Appendix. 

(2.)  The  "Consensus  Genevensis"  was  drawn  up  by  Calvin, 
a.  d.  1552,  in  the  name  of  the  Pastors  of  Geneva,  and  is  a  com- 
plete statement  of  Calvin's  views  on  the  subject  of  Predestina- 
tion.  It  was  designed  to  unite  all  the  Swiss  Churches  in  their 
views  of  this  great  doctrine.  It  remains  a  pre-eminent  monu- 
ment of  the  fundamental  principles  of  true  Calvinism. 

(3.)  The  "Formula  Consensus  Helvetica"  composed  at  Zurich, 
a.  d.  1675,  by  John  Henry  Heidegger  of  Zurich,  assisted  by 
Francis  Turretin  of  Geneva  and  Luke  Gernler  of  Basle.  Its 
title  is  "Form  of  agreement  of  the  Helvetic  Reformed  Churches 
respecting  the  doctrine  of  universal  grace,  the  doctrines  con- 
nected therewith,  and  some  other  points."  It  was  designed  to 
unite  the  Swiss  Churches  in  condemning  and  excluding  that 
modified  form  of  Calvinism,  which  in  that  century  emanated 
from  the  Theological  School  of  Saumur,  represented  by  Amyral- 


128  CREEDS   AND    CONFESSIONS. 

dus,  Placaeus,  etc.  This  is  the  most  scientific  and  thorough  of 
all  the  Reformed  Confessions.  Its  eminent  authorship*  and  the 
fact  that  it  distinctively  represents  the  most  thoroughly  con- 
sistent school  of  old  Calvinists  gives  it  high  classical  interest. 
It  was  subscribed  by  nearly  all  the  Swiss  Churches,  but  ceased 
to  have  public  authority  as  a  Confession  since  a.  d.  1722.f  All 
the  Confessions  of  the  Reformed  Churches  may  be  found  col- 
lected in  one  convenient  volume  in  the  "  Collectio  Confessionum 
in  Ecclesiis  Reformatis  publicatarum,"  by  Dr.  H.  A.  Niemeyer, 
Leipsic,  1840,  and  in  Dr.  Schaff 's  "  Creeds  of  Christendom." 

*   See    Herzog's    Real -Encyclopedia.     Bomberger's    translation.     Article, 
"Helvetic  Confessions." 

t  An  accurate  translation  will  be  found  in  the  Appendix. 


CHAPTER    VIII. 

THE  ATTRIBUTES  OF  GOD. 

1.  Wliat  are  the  three  methods  of  determining  what  attributes 
belong  to  the  divine  Being  ? 

1st.  The  method  of  analyzing  the  idea  of  infinite  and  abso- 
lute perfection.  This  method  proceeds  upon  the  assumption 
that  ice  are,  as  intelligent  and  moral  agents,  created  in  the 
image  of  God.  In  this  process  we  attribute  to  him  every  ex- 
cellence that  we  have  any  experience  or  conception  of,  in  an 
infinite  degree,  and  in  absolute  perfection,  and  we  deny  of 
him  every  form  of  imperfection  or  limitation. 

2d.  The  method  of  inferring  his  characteristics  from  our 
observation  of  his  works  around  us  and  our  experience  of  his 
dealings  with  ourselves. 

3d.  The  didactic  statements  of  Scripture,  the  illustration  of 
his  character  therein  given  in  his  supernatural  revelation  and 
gracious  dispensations,  and  above  all  in  the  personal  revelation 
of  God  in  his  Son  Jesus  Christ. 

All  these  methods  agree  and  mutually  supplement  and  limit 
each  other.  The  idea  of  absolute  and  infinite  perfection,  which 
in  some  sense  is  native  to  us,  aids  us  in  interpreting  Scripture 
— and  the  Scriptures  correct  the  inferences  of  the  natural  rea- 
son, and  set  the  seal  of  divine  authority  upon  our  opinions 
about  the  divine  nature. 

2.  How  far  can  we  have  assurance  that  the  objective  reality  cor- 
responds vnth  our  subjective  conceptions  of  tJie  divine  nature? 

There  are  upon  this  subject  two  opposite  extreme  positions 
which  it  is  necessary  to  avoid.  1st.  The  extreme  of  supposing 
that  our  conceptions  of  God  either  in  kind  or  degree  are  ade- 
quate to  represent  the  objective  reality  of  his  perfections.  God 
is  incomprehensible  to  us  in  the  sense  (a)  that  there  remains 
an  immeasurably  greater  part  of  his  being  and  excellence  of 
which  we  have  and  can  have  no  knowledge,  and  (b)  in  the 
sense  that  even  what  wc  know  of  him  we  Know  imperfectly, 
9 


130  THE  ATTRIBUTES    OF   GOD. 

and  at  best  conceive  of  very  inadequately.  In  this  respect  the 
imperfection  of  the  knowledge  which  men  have  of  God  is  anal- 
ogous in  kind,  though  indefinitely  greater  in  degree  to  the  im- 
perfection of  the  knowledge  which  a  child  may  have  of  the  life 
of  a  great  philosopher  or  statesman  dwelling  in  the  same  city. 
The  child  not  only  knows  that  the  philosopher  or  statesman  in 
question  lives — but  he  knows  also  in  some  real  degree  lohat 
that  life  is — yet  that  knowledge  is  imperfect  both  in  respect  to 
the  fact  that  it  apprehends  a  very  small  proportion  of  that  life, 
and  that  it  very  imperfectly  comprehends  even  that  small  pro- 
portion. 2d.  The  second  extreme  to  be  avoided  is  that  of  sup- 
posing that  our  knowledge  of  God  is  purely  illusory,  that  our 
conceptions  of  the  divine  perfections  can  not  correspond  in  any 
degree  to  the  objective  reality.  Sir  Wm.  Hamilton,  Mr.  Man- 
sel,  and  others,  having  proved  that  we  are  forced  to  think  of 
God  as  "  first  cause,"  as  "  infinite,"  and  as  "  absolute,"  proceed 
to  give  definitions  of  these  abstract  terms,  which  they  then 
show  necessarily  involve  mutual  contradictions,  of  which  the 
human  reason  is  intolerant.  They  then  conclude  that  our  con- 
ceptions of  God  can  not  correspond  to  the  real  objective  exist- 
ence of  the  divine  being.  "To  think  that  God  is  as  we  can 
think  him  to  be  is  blasphemy."  The  last  and  highest  conse- 
cration of  all  true  religion,  must  be  an  altar — 'Ayvaotircp  9eg5 — 
"To  the  unknown  and  unknowable  God"  (Sir  William  Ham- 
ilton's "  Discussions,"  p.  22).  They  hold  that  all  the  represen- 
tations of  God  conveyed  in  the  Scriptures,  and  the  best  con- 
ceptions we  are  with  the  aid  of  Scripture  able  to  form  in  our 
minds,  do  not  at  all  correspond  to  the  outward  reality,  but  are 
designed  simply  to  be  accepted  not  as  actual  scientific  knowl- 
edge, but  as  regulative  assumptions  "abundantly  instructive 
in  point  of  sentiment  and  action"  and  practically  sufficient  for 
our  present  needs ;  "  sufficient  to  guide  our  practice,  but  not  to 
satisfy  our  intellect — which  tell  not  ivhat  God  is  in  himself,  but 
how  he  tuilU  that  we  should  think  of  fek" — Hansel's  "  Limits  of 
Religious  Thought,"  p.  132. 

This  view,  although  not  so  intended,  really  leads  to  skep- 
tical if  not  to  dogmatic  atheism.  (1.)  It  is  founded  upon  an 
artificial  and  inapplicable  definition  of  certain  abstract  notions 
entertained  by  philosophers  concerning  the  "absolute"  and  the 
"  infinite."  As  shown  below,  Question  6,  a  true  definition  of 
the  absolute  and  infinite,  in  the  sense  in  which  the  Scriptures 
and  the  unsophisticated  minds  of  men  hold  God  to  be  absolute 
and  infinite,  involves  no  contradictions  or  absurdities  whatso- 
ever. (2.)  It  will  be  shown  below,  Questions  3  and  5,  that  there 
is  adequate  ground  for  the  assumption  that  as  intellectual  and 
moral  beings  we  are  really  and  truly  created  in  the  image  of 


WHAT  IS   ANTIIROrOMORPIIISM?  131 

God,  and  therefore  capable  of  knowing  him  as  he  really  exists. 
(3.)  If  our  consciousness  and  the  Sacred  Scriptures  present  us 
illusory  conceptions  as  to  what  God  is,  we  have  no  reason  to 
trust  to  their  assurance  that  God  is.  (4.)  This  principle  leads 
to  absolute  skepticism.  If  our  Creator  wills  that  we  should 
think  of  him  as  he  does  not  really  exist,  we  have  no  reason 
to  trust  our  constitutional  instincts  or  faculties  in  any  depart- 
ment. (5.)  This  principle  is  immoral  since  it  makes  a  false 
representation  of  the  divine  attributes  the  regulative  principle 
of  man's  moral  and  religious  life.  (6.)  The  highest  and  most 
certain  dictates  of  human  reason  necessitates  the  conviction 
that  moral  principles,  and  the  essential  nature  of  moral  attri- 
butes, must  be  identically  the  same  in  all  worlds  and  in  all 
beings  possessed  of  a  moral  character  in  any  sense.  Truth 
and  justice  and  loving-kindness  must  be  always  and  only  the 
same  in  Creator  and  creature,  in  God  and  man. 

3.  Wliat  is  anthropomorphism,  and  in  what  different  senses  is 
the  word  used? 

Anthropomorphism  {avQpGOTtos,  man;  fiopcpri,  form)  is  a  phrase 
employed  to  designate  any  view  of  God's  nature  which  con- 
ceives of  him  as  possessing  or  exercising  any  attributes  com- 
mon to  him  with  mankind. 

The  Anthropomorphites  in  ancient  times  held  that  God  pos- 
sessed bodily  parts  and  organs  like  ours,  and  hence  that  all 
those  passages  of  Scripture  which  speak  of  his  eyes,  hands, 
etc.,  are  to  be  interpreted  literally. 

The  Pantheists,  Sir  William  Hamilton,  and  other  philoso- 
phers designate  all  our  conceptions  of  God  as  a  personal  Spirit, 
etc.,  as  anthropomorphic — that  is,  as  modes  of  conception  not 
conformed  to  objective  fact,  but  determined  necessarily  by  the 
subjective  conditions  of  our  own  human  modes  of  thought. 

It  hence  follows  that  this  phrase  is  to  be  taken  in  two 
senses. 

1st.  A  good  sense,  in  which,  since  man  as  a  free  rational 
spirit  was  created  in  the  image  of  God,  it  is  both  Scriptural, 
rational,  and  according  to  objective  fact,  for  man  to  conceive 
of  God  as  possessing  all  the  essential  attributes  which  belong 
to  our  spirits  in  absolute  perfection  of  kind,  and  with  no  limit 
inconsistent  with  absolute  perfection  in  degree.  When  we  say 
that  God  knows,  and  wills,  and  feels,  that  ne  is  just,  true,  and 
merciful,  we  mean  to  ascribe  to  him  attributes  of  the  same  kind 
as  the  corresponding  ones  belonging  to  men,  only  in  absolute 
perfection,  and  without  limit. 

2d.  The  word  is  used  in  a  had  sense  when  it  designates  any 
mode  of  conceiving  of  God  which  involves  the  ascription  to  him 


132  THE   ATTRIBUTES    OF   GOD. 

of  imperfection  or  limitation  of  any  kind.  Thus  to  conceive  of 
God  as  possessing  hands  or  feet,  or  as  experiencing  the  pertur- 
bations of  human  passion,  or  the  like,  is  a  false  and  unworthy 
anthropomorphism. 

4.  How  are  we  to  understand  those  passages  of  Scripture  which 
attribute  to  God  bodily  parts  and  the  infirmities  of  human  passion  ? 

The  passages  referred  to  are  such  as  speak  of  the  face  of 
God,  Ex.  xxxiii.  11,  20;  his  eyes,  2  Chron.  xvi.  9;  his  nostrils,  2 
Sam.  xxii.  9,  16;  his  arms  and  feet,  Isa.  Hi.  10,  and  Ps.  xviii.  9; 
and  such  as  speak  of  his  repenting  and  grieving,  Gen.  vi.  6,  7 ; 
Jer.  xv.  6;  Ps.  xcv.  10;  of  his  being  jealous,  Deut.  xxix.  20,  etc. 
These  are  to  be  understood  only  as  metaphors.  They  represent 
the  truth  with  respect  to  God  only  analogically,  and  as  seen 
from  our  point  of  view.  That  God  can  not  be  material  is  shown 
below,  Question  20. 

When  he  is  said  to  repent,  or  to  be  grieved,  or  to  be  jealous, 
it  is  only  meant  that  he  acts  towards  us  as  a  man  would  when 
agitated  by  such  passions.  These  metaphors  occur  principally 
in  the  Old  Testament,  and  in  highly  rhetorical  passages  of  the 
poetical  and  prophetical  books. 

5.  State  the  proof  that  Anthropomorphic  conceptions  of  God,  in 
the  good  sense  of  the  tvord,  are  both  necessary  and  valid. 

The  fundamental  fact  upon  which  all  science,  all  theology, 
and  all  religion  rests  is  that  God  made  man  a  living  soul  in  his 
own  image.  Otherwise  man  could  have  no  understanding  of 
God's  works  any  more  than  of  his  nature,  and  all  relations 
of  thought  or  feeling  between  them  would  be  impossible.  That 
man  has  the  right  thus  far  to  conceive  of  God  as  the  original 
and  all  perfect  fountain  of  the  moral  and  rational  qualities  with 
which  he  is  himself  endowed  is  proved — 

1st.  It  is  determined  by  the  necessary  laws  of  our  nature, 
(a.)  This  is  a  matter  of  consciousness.  If  we  believe  in  God  at 
all  we  must  conceive  of  him  as  a  rational  and  righteous  personal 
spirit,  (b.)  Such  a  conception  of  God  has  universally  prevailed 
even  amidst  the  degrading  adulterations  of  heathen  mythology. 

2d.  We  have  no  other  possible  mode  of  knowing  God.  The 
alternative  ever  must  be  the  principle  for  which  we  contend,  or 
absolute  atheism. 

3d.  The  same  is  determined  by  the  necessities  of  our  moral 
nature.  The  innate  and  indestructible  moral  nature  of  man 
includes  a  sense  of  subjection  to  a  righteous  will  superior  to 
ourselves,  and  accountability  to  a  moral  Governor.  This  is 
nonsense  unless  the  moral  Governor  is  in  our  sense  of  the  word 
an  intelligent  and  righteous  personal  spirit. 


MEANING  OF  TERMS  "INFINITE"  AND  "ABSOLUTE."  133 

4th.  The  most  enduring  and  satisfactory  argument  for  estab- 
lishing the  facts  of  God's  existence  is  the  a  posteriori  argument 
from  the  evidences  of  "design"  in  the  works  of  God.  If  this 
argument  has  any  force  to  prove  that  God  is,  it  has  equal  force 
to  prove  that  he  must  possess  and  exercise  intelligence,  benev- 
olent intention  and  choice,  i.  e.,  that  he  must  be  in  our  sense  of 
the  terms  an  intelligent  personal  spirit. 

5th.  The  Scriptures  characteristically  ascribe  the  same  attri- 
butes to  God,  and  everywhere  assume  their  existence. 

6th.  God  manifested  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ,  who  is 
the  express  image  of  his  person,  has  in  all  situations  exhibited 
these  very  attributes,  yet  in  such  a  way  as  to  prove  himself  to 
be  God  as  truly  as  he  was  man. 

6.  What  is  the  meaning  of  the  terms  "infinite"  and  "absolute? 
and  in  what  sense  are  tJiey  applied  to  the  being  of  God,  and  to  his 
attributes  severally  ? 

Hamilton  and  Mansel  define  the  infinite  "  that  which  is  free  ^ 
from  all  possible  limitation ;  that  than  which  a  greater  is  incon- 
ceivable, and  which,  consequently,  can  receive  no  additional 
attributes  or  mode  of  existence  which  it  had  not  from  eternity ; " 
and  the  absolute  as  "that  which  exists  by  itself,  having  no 
necessary  relations  to  any  other  being."  Hence  they  argue 
(a)  that  that  which  is  infinite  and  absolute  must  include  the 
sum  total  of  all  things,  evil  and  good,  actual  and  possible ;  for 
if  any  thing  actual  or  possible  is  excluded  from  it,  it  must  be 
finite  and  relative ;  (J>)  that  it  can  not  be  an  object  of  knowledge, 
for  to  know  is  both  to  limit — to  define — and  to  bring  into  rela- 
tion to  the  one  knowing;  (c)  that  it  can  not  be  a  person,  for 
personal  consciousness  implies  limitation  and  change;  (d)  that 
it  can  not  know  other  things,  because  to  know,  implies  rela- 
tion as  before  said. — Hamilton's  "Discussions,"  Art.  1;  Hansel's 
"Limits  of  Religious  Thought,"  Lectures  1,  2,  3. 

All  of  this  logical  bewilderment  results  from  these  philoso- 
phers starting  from  the  false  premise  of  an  abstract,  notional 
"infinite"  and  "absolute,"  and  substituting  their  definition  of 
that  in  the  place  of  the  true  infinite  and  absolute  person  revealed 
in  Scripture  and  consciousness  as  the  first  cause  of  all  things, 
the  moral  Governor  and  Redeemer  of  mankind. 
*^  "  Infinite  "  means  that  which  has  no  limits.  When  we  say 
God  is 'infinite  in  his  being,  or  in  his  knowledge,  or  in  his  power, 
we  mean  that  his  essence  and  the  active  properties  thereof, 
have  no  limitations  which  involve  imperfections  of  any  kind 
whatsoever.  He  transcends  all  the  limitations  of  time  and  space, 
he  knows  all  things  in  an  absolutely  perfect  manner.  He  is 
able  to  effect  whatsoever  he  wills  to  effect  with  or  without 


134  THE    ATTRIBUTES    OF   GOD. 

means,  and  with  perfect  facility  and  success.     When  men  say 
that  God  is  infinite  in  his  justice,  or  his  goodness,  or  his  truth, 
they  mean  that  his  inexhaustible  and  unchangeable  being  pos- ' 
sesses  these  properties  in  absolute  perfection. 

"  Absolute  "  when  applied  to  the  being  of  God  signifies  that 
he  is  an  eternal  self-existent  person,  who  existed  before  all 
other  beings,  and  is  the  intelligent  and  voluntary  cause  of 
whatsoever  else  has  or  will  exist  in  the  universe,  etc.,  that  he 
sustains,  consequently,  no  necessary  relation  to  any  thing  ivithout 
himself.  Whatever  exists  is  conditioned  upon  God,  as  the  cir- 
cle is  conditioned  upon  its  centre,  but  God  himself  neither  in 
his  existence,  nor  in  any  of  the  modes  or  states  of  it,  is  condi- 
tioned upon  any  of  his  creatures,  nor  upon  his  creation  as  a 
whole.  God  is  what  he  is  because  he  is,  and  he  wills  whatso- 
ever he  does  will  because  "  it  seemeth  good  in  his  sight."  All 
other  things  are  what  they  are  because  God  has  willed  them 
to  be  as  they  are.  Whatsoever  relation  he  sustains  to  any 
thing  without  himself  is  voluntarily  assumed. 

7.  In  what  different  ways  do  the  Scriptures  reveal  God  ? 

They  reveal  God — 1st.  By  his  names.  2d.  By  the  works 
which  they  ascribe  to  him.  3d.  By  the  attributes  which  they 
predicate  of  him.  4th.  By  the  worship  they  direct  to  be  paid 
to  him.     5th.  By  the  manifestation  of  God  in  Christ 

8.  State  the  etymology  and  meaning  of  tlve  several  names  ap- 
propriated to  God  in  tlie  Scriptures. 

1st.  Jehovah,  from  the  Hebrew  verb  i"!}'3>  to  he.  It  expresses 
self-existence  and  unchangeableness ;  it  is  the  incommunicable 
name  of  God,  which  the  Jews  superstitiously  refused  to  pro- 
nounce, always  substituting  in  their  reading  the  word  Adonai, 
Lord.  Hence  it  is  represented  in  our  English  version  by  the 
word  Lord,  printed  in  capital  letters. 

Jah,  probably  an  abbreviation  of  the  name  Jehovah,  is  used 
principally  in  the  Psalms. — Ps.  lxviii.  4.  It  constitutes  the 
concluding  syllable  of  hallelujah,  yyraise  Jehovah, 

God  gave  to  Moses  his  peculiar  name,  "I  am  that  I  am," 
Ex.  iii.  14,  from  the  same  root,  and  bearing  the  same  funda- 
mental significance  as  Jehovah. 

2d.  El,  might,  power,  translated  God,  and  applied  alike  to 
the  true  and  to  the  false  gods. — Isa.  xliv.  10. 

3d.  Elouim  and  Eloah,  the  same  name  in  its  singular  and 
plural  form,  derived  from  PI7N.  to  fear,  reverence.  "In  its  sin- 
ular  form  it  is  used  only  in  the  latter  books  and  in  poetrv." 
n  the  plural  form  it  is  sometimes  used  with  a  plural  sense  for 


I 


THE    NAMES    OF   GOD.  135 

gods,  but  more  commonly  as  a  pluralis  exccUentice,  for  God. 
It  is  applied  to  false  gods,  but  pre-eminently  to  Jehovah  as  the 
great  object  of  adoration. 

4th.  Adoxai,  the  Lord,  a  pluralis  exceUentice,  applied  exclu- 
sively to  God,  expressing  possession  and  sovereign  dominion, 
equivalent  to  Kvpioz,  Lord,  so  frequently  applied  to  Christ  in 
the  New  Testament. 

5th.  Saddai,  almighty,  a  pluralis  exceUentiai.  Sometimes  it 
stands  by  itself. — Job  v.  17 ;  and  sometimes  combined  with  a 
preceding  El. — Gen  xvii.  1. 

6th.  Elyon,  Most  High,  a  verbal  adjective  from  r6y,  to  go  up, 
ascend. — Ps.  ix.  3;  xxi.  8. 

7th.  The  term  Tzebaoth,  of  hosts,  is  frequently  used  as  an 
epithet  qualifying  one  of  the  above-mentioned  names  of  God. 
Thus,  Jehovah  of  Hosts,  God  of  Hosts,  Jehovah,  God  of  Hosts. — 
Amos  iv.  13 ;  Ps.  xxiv.  10.  Some  have  thought  this  equivalent 
to  God  of  Battles.  The  true  force  of  the  epithet,  however,  is 
"sovereign  of  the  stars,  material  hosts  of  heaven,  and  of  the 
angels  their  inhabitants." — Dr.  J.  A.  Alexander,  "Com.  on  Ps. 
xxiv.  10,"  and  Gesenius's  "  Heb.  Lex." 

8th.  Many  other  epithets  are  applied  to  God  metaphorically, 
to  set  forth  the  relation  he  sustains  to  us  and  the  offices  he  ful- 
fills, e.  g.,  King,  Lawgiver,  Judge. — Isa.  xxxiii.  17;  Ps.  xxiv.  8; 
1.  6.  Rock,  Fortress,  Tower,  Deliverer. — 2  Sam.  xxii.  2,  3; 
Ps.  lxii.  2.  Shepherd,  Husbandman. — Ps.  xxiii.  1 ;  John  xv.  1. 
Father. — Matt.  vi.  9;  John  xx.  17,  etc. 

9.  What  are  the  divine  attributes? 

The  divine  attributes  are  the  perfections  which  are  predi- 
cated of  the  divine  essence  in  the  Scriptures,  or  visibly  exer- 
cised by  God  in  his  works  of  creation  and  providence  and 
redemption.  They  are  not  properties  or  states  of  the  divine 
essence  separable  in  fact  or  idea  from  the  divine  essence,  as 
the  properties  and  modes  of  every  created  thing  are  separable 
from  the  essence  of  the  creature.  God's  knowledge  is  his 
essence  knowing,  and  his  love  is  his  essence  loving,  and  his 
will  is  his  essence  willing,  and  all  these  are  not  latent  capa- 
cities of  action,  nor  changing  states,  but  co-existent  and  eter- 
nally unchangeable  states  of  the  divine  essence  which  in  state 
and  mode  as  well  as  in  existence  is  "  the  same  yesterday,  to- 
day and  forever"  and  "without  variableness  or  shadow  of 
turning." 

Concerning  the  nature  and  operations  of  God,  we  can  know 
only  what  he  has  vouchsafed  to  reveal  to  us,  and  with  every 
conception,  either  of  his  being  or  his  acts,  there  must  always 
attend  an  element  of  incomprehensibility,  which  is  inseparable 


136  THE    ATTRIBUTES    OF   GOD. 

from  infinitude.  His  knowledge  and  power  are  as  truly  beyond 
all  understanding  as  his  eternity  or  immensity. — Job.  xi.  7-9 ; 
xxvi.  14;  Ps.  cxxxix.  5,  6;  Isa.  xl.  28.  The  moral  elements  of 
his  glorious  nature  are  the  norm  or  original  type  of  our  moral 
faculties;  thus  we  are  made  capable  of  comprehending  the  ulti- 
mate principles  of  truth  and  justice  upon  which  he  acts.  Truth 
and  justice  and  goodness  are  of  course  the  same  in  essence  in 
God  and  in  angel  and  in  man.  Yet  his  action  upon  those  prin- 
ciples is  often  a  trial  of  our  faith,  and  an  occasion  of  our  ador- 
ing wonder. — Rom.  xi.  33-36;  Isa.  lv.  8,  9. 

10.  What  do  theologians  mean  by  Hie  phrase  simplicity,  wl\m 
applied  to  God  ? 

The  term  simplicity  is  used,  first,  in  opposition  to  material 
composition,  whether  mechanical,  organic,  or  chemical;  second, 
in  a  metaphysical  sense  in  negation  of  the  relation  of  substance 
and  property,  essence  and  mode.  In  the  first  sense  of  the  word 
human  souls  are  simple,  because  they  are  not  composed  of  ele- 
ments, parts,  or  organs.  In  the  second  sense  of  the  word  our 
souls  are  complex,  since  there  is  in  them  a  distinction  between 
their  essence  and  their  properties,  and  their  successive  modes 
or  states  of  existence.  As,  however,  God  is  infinite,  eternal, 
self-existent  from  eternity,  necessarily  the  same  without  suc- 
cession, theologians  have  maintained  that  in  him  essence,  and 
property,  and  mode  are  one.  He  always  is  what  he  is ;  and  his 
various  states  of  intellection,  emotion,  and  volition  are  not  suc- 
cessive and  transient  but  co-existent  and  permanent;  and  he  is 
what  he  is  essentially,  and  by  the  same  necessity  that  he  exists. 
Whatever  is  in  God,  whether  thought,  emotion,  volition,  or 
act,  is  God. 

Some  men  conceive  of  God  as  passing  through  various  tran- 
sient modes  and  states  just  as  men  do,  and  therefore  they  sup- 
pose the  properties  of  the  divine  nature  are  related  to  the  divine 
essence  as  the  properties  of  created  things  are  related  to  the 
essences  which  are  endowed  with  them.  Others  press  the  idea 
of  simplicity  so  far  that  they  deny  any  distinction  in  the  divine 
attributes  in  themselves,  and  suppose  that  the  only  difference 
between  them  is  to  be  found  in  the  mode  of  external  manifest- 
ation, and  in  the  effects  produced.  They  illustrate  their  idea 
by  the  various  effects  produced  on  different  objects  by  the  same 
radiance  of  the  sun. 

In  order  to  avoid  both  extremes  theologians  have  been  ac- 
customed to  say  that  the  divine  attributes  differ  from  the  divine* 
essence  and  from  one  another,  1st,  not  realiter  or  as  one  thing 
differs  from  another,  or  in  any  such  way  as  to  imply  composi- 
tion in  God.     Nor  2d,  merely  nomincditer,  as  though  there  were 


PRINCIPLES   OF   CLASSIFICATION.  137 

nothing  in  God  really  corresponding  to  our  conceptions  of  his 
perfections.  But  3d,  they  are  said  to  differ  virtualiter,  so  that 
there  is  in  him  a  foundation  or  adequate  reason  for  all  the  rep- 
resentations which  are  made  in  Scripture  with  regard  to  the 
divine  perfections,  and  for  the  consequent  conceptions  which 
we  have  of  them. — Turretin's  "  Institutio  Theologicse,"  Locus 
iii.,  Ques.  5  and  7,  and  Dr.  C.  Hodge's  "Lectures." 

11.  State  the  different  principles  upon  which  the  classification  of 
the  divine  attributes  has  been  attempted. 

From  the  vastness  of  the  subject  and  the  incommensurate- 
ness  of  our  faculties,  it  is  evident  that  no  classification  of  the 
divine  attributes  we  can  form  can  be  any  thing  more  than  ap- 
proximately accurate  and  complete.  The  most  common  class- 
ifications rest  upon  the  following  principles : 

1st.  They  are  distinguished  as  absolute  and  relative.  An  ab- 
solute attribute  is  a  property  of  the  divine  essence  considered 
in  itself:  e.  g.,  self-existence,  immensity,  eternity,  intelligence. 
A  relative  attribute  is  a  property  of  the  divine  essence  con- 
sidered in  relation  to  the  creation:  e.  g.,  omnipresence,  omni- 
science, etc. 

2d.  They  are  also  distinguished  as  affirmative  and  negative, 
An  affirmative  attribute  is  one  which  expresses  some  positive 
perfection  of  the  divine  essence:  e.  g.,  omnipresence,  omnipo- 
tence, etc.  A  negative  attribute  is  one  which  denies  all  defect 
or  limitation  of  any  kind  to  God:  e.  g.,  immutability,  infinitude, 
incomprehensibility,  etc. 

3d.  The  attributes  of  God,  distinguished  as  communicable 
and  incommunicable.  The  communicable  are  those  to  which 
the  attributes  of  the  human  spirit  bear  the  nearest  analogy:  e.  g., 
his  power,  knowledge,  will,  goodness,  and  righteousness.  The 
incommunicable  are  those  to  which  there  is  in  the  creature 
nothing  analogous,  as  eternity,  immensity,  etc.  This  distinc- 
tion, however,  must  not  be  pressed  too  far.  God  is  infinite  in 
his  relation  to  space  and  time ;  we  are  finite  in  our  relation  to 
both.  But  he  is  no  less  infinite  as  to  his  knowledge,  will,  good- 
ness, and  righteousness  in  all  their  modes,  and  we  are  finite  in 
all  these  respects.  All  God's  attributes  known  to  us,  or  con- 
ceivable by  us,  are  communicable,  inasmuch  as  they  have  their 
analogy  in  us,  but  they  are  all  alike  incommunicable,  inasmuch 
as  they  are  all  infinite. 

4th.  The  attributes  of  God,  distinguished  as  natural  and 
moral.  The  natural  are  all  those  which  pertain  to  his  exist- 
ence as  an  infinite,  rational  Spirit:  e.  g.,  eternity,  immensity, 
intelligence,  will,  power.     The  moral  are  those  additional  attri- 


138  THE    ATTRIBUTES    OF   GOD. 

bules  which  belong  to  him  as  an  infinite,  righteous  Spirit:  e.  g. 
justice,  mercy,  truth. 

I  would  diffidently  propose  the  following  fourfold  clas- 
sification : 

(1.)  Those  attributes  which  equally  qualify  all  the  rest — 
Infinitude,  that  which  has  no  bounds ;  absoluteness,  that  which  is 
determined  either  in  its  being,  or  modes  of  being  or  action,  by 
nothing  whatsoever  without  itself.    This  includes  immutability. 

(2.)  Natural  attributes.  God  is  an  infinite  Spirit,  self-existent, 
eternal,  immense,  simple,  free  of  mill,  intelligent,  powerful. 

(3.)  Moral  attributes.  God  is  a  Spirit  infinitely  righteous, 
good,  true,  and  faithful. 

(4.)  The  consummate  glory  of  all  the  divine  perfections  in 
union.     The  beauty  of  holiness. 

The  Unity  of  God. 

12.  In  what  two  senses  of  the  word  is  Unity  predicated  of  God? 

1st.  God  is  unique :  there  is  only  one  God  to  the  exclusion 
of  all  others. 

2d.  Notwithstanding  the  threefold  personal  distinction  in 
the  unity  of  the  Godhead,  yet  these  three  Persons  are  numeri- 
cally one  substance  or  essence,  and  constitute  one  indivisible 
God. 

13.  How  may  the  proposition,  that  God  is  one  and  indivisible, 
be  proved  ? 

1st.  There  appears  to  be  a  necessity  in  reason  for  conceiving 
of  God  as  one.  That  which  is  absolute  and  infinite  can  not  but 
be  one  and  indivisible  in  essence.  If  God  is  not  one,  then  it 
will  necessarily  follow  that  there  are  more  gods  than  one. 

2d.  The  uniform  representation  of  Scripture. — John  x.  30. 

14.  Prove  from  Scripture  that  tJie  proposition,  there  is  but  one 
God,  is  true. 

Deut.  vi.  4 ;  1  Kings  viii.  60 ;  Isa.  xliv.  6 ;  Mark  xii.  29,  32 ; 
1  Cor.  viii.  4;  Eph.  iv.  6. 

15.  What  is  the  argument  from  the  harmony  of  creation  in  favor 
of  the  divine  unity  ? 

The  whole  creation,  between  the  outermost  range  of  teles- 
copic and  of  microscopic  observation,  is  manifestly  one  indivi- 
sible system.  But  we  have  already  (Chapter  II.)  proved  the 
existence  of  God  from  the  phenomena  of  the  universe;  and  we 
now  argue,  upon  the  same  principle,  that  if  an  effect  proves 
the  prior  operation  of  a  cause,  and  if  traces  of  design  prove  a 


UNITY  AND    SPIRITUALITY   OF   GOD.  139 

designer,  then  singleness  of  plan  and  operation  in  that  design 
and  its  execution  prove  that  the  designer  is  one. 

16.  What  is  the  argument  upon  this  'point  from  necessary  ex- 
istence? 

The  existence  of  God  is  said  to  be  necessary,  because  it  has 
its  cause  from  eternity  in  itself.  It  is  the  same  in  all  duration 
and  in  all  space  alike.  It  is  absurd  to  conceive  of  God's  not 
existing  at  any  time  or  in  any  portion  of  space,  while  all  other 
existence  whatsoever,  depending  upon  his  mere  will,  is  contin- 
gent. But  the  necessity  which  is  uniform  in  all  times  and  in 
every  portion  of  space,  is  evidently  only  one  and  indivisible, 
and  can  be  the  ground  of  the  existence  only  of  one  God. 

This  argument  is  logical,  and  has  been  prized  highly  by 
many  distinguished  theologians.  It  however  appears  to  in- 
volve the  error  of  presuming  human  logic  to  be  the  measure 
of  existence. 

17.  What  is  the  argument  from  infinite  perfection,  in  proof  that 
there  can  be  hut  one  God  ? 

God  is  infinite  in  his  being  and  in  all  of  his  perfections. 
But  the  infinite,  by  including  all,  excludes  all  others,  of  the 
same  kind.  If  there  were  two  infinite  beings,  each  would  nec- 
essarily include  the  other,  and  be  included  by  it,  and  thus  they 
would  be  the  same,  one  and  identical.  It  is  certain  that  the  idea 
of  the  co-existence  of  two  infinitely  perfect  beings  is  as  repug- 
nant to  human  reason  as  to  Scripture. 

18.  What  is  polytheism?  and  what  dualism? 

Polytheism,  as  the  etymology  of  the  word  indicates,  is  a  gen- 
eral term  designating  every  system  of  religion  which  teaches 
the  existence  of  a  plurality  of  gods. 

Dualism  is  the  designation  of  that  system  which  recognizes 
two  original  and  independent  principles  in  the  universe,  the 
one  good  and  the  other  evil.  At  present  these  principles  are 
in  a  relation  of  ceaseless  antagonism,  the  good  ever  struggling 
to  oppose  the  evil,  and  to  deliver  its  province  from  its  baneful 
intrusion. 

The  Spirituality  op  God. 

19.  What  is  affirmed  and  what  is  denied  in  the  proposition  that 
God  is  a  Spirit  ? 

Wo  know  nothing  of  substance  except  as  it  is  manifested 
by  its  properties.  Matter  is  that  substance  whose  properties 
manifest  themselves  directly  to  our  bodily  senses.     Spirit  is 


140  THE    ATTRIBUTES    OF   GOD. 

that  substance  whose  properties  manifest  themselves  to  us  di- 
rectly in  self-consciousness,  and  only  inferentially  by  words  and 
other  signs  or  modes  of  expression  through  our  senses. 

When  we  say  God  is  a  Spirit  we  mean — 

1st.  Negatively,  that  he  does  not  possess  bodily  parts  or  pas- 
sions; that  he  is  composed  of  no  material  elements;  that  he  is 
not  subject  to  any  of  the  limiting  conditions  of  material  exist- 
ence ;  and,  consequently,  that  he  is  not  to  be  apprehended  as  the 
object  of  any  of  our  bodily  senses. 

2d.  Positively,  that  he  is  a  rational  being,  who  distinguishes 
with  infinite  precision  between  the  true  and  the  false ;  that  he 
is  a  moral  being,  who  distinguishes  between  the  right  and  the 
wrong;  that  he  is  a  free  agent,  whose  action  is  self-determined 
by  his  own  will;  and,  in  fine,  that  all  the  essential  properties  of 
our  spirits  may  truly  be  predicated  of  him  in  an  infinite  degree. 

This  great  truth  is  inconsistent  with  the  doctrine  that  God 
is  the  soul  of  the  world  (anima  mundi)  a  plastic  organizing 
force  inseparable  from  matter;  also  with  the  Gnostic  doctrine 
of  emanation,  and  with  all  forms  of  modern  Materialism  and 
Pantheism. 

20.  Exhibit  the  proof  that  God  is  a  Spirit. 

1st.  It  is  explicitly  asserted  in  Scripture. — John  iv.  24. 

2d.  It  follows  from  our  idea  of  infinite  and  absolute  perfec- 
tions. Matter  is  obviously  inferior  to  Spirit,  and  inseparable 
from  many  kinds  of  imperfections  and  limitations.  Matter 
consisting  of  separate  and  ceaselessly  reacting  atoms  can  not 
be  "one,"  nor  "infinite,"  nor  "immutable,"  etc.  The  idea  that 
matter  may  be  united  with  spirit  in  God,  as  it  is  in  man,  is 
felt  to  degrade  him,  and  bind  him  fast  under  the  limitations 
of  time  and  space. 

3d.  There  is  no  trace  anywhere  of  material  properties  in  the 
Creator  and  Providential  Governor  of  the  universe — whereas 
all  the  evidence  that  a  God  exists  conspires  to  prove  also  that 
he  is  a  supremely  wise,  benevolent,  righteous,  and  powerful 
person — that  is,  that  he  is  a  personal  spirit. 

God's  Eelation  to  Space. 

21.  What  is  meant  by  the  immensity  of  God? 

The  immensity  of  God  is  the  phrase  used  to  express  the  fact 
that  God  is  infinite  in  his  relation  to  space,  i.  e.,  that  the  entire 
indivisible  essence  of  God  is  at  every  moment  of  time  cotempo- 
raneously  present  to  every  point  of  infinite  space. 

This  is  not  in  virtue  of  the  infinite  multiplication  of  his  Spirit, 
since  he  is  eternally  one  and  individual;  nor  does  it  result  from 


HIS   RELATION   TO    SPACE.  141 

Hie  infinite  diffusion  of  his  essence  through  infinite  space,  as  ait 
is  diffused  over  the  surface  of  the  earth,  since,  being  a  Spirit  lie 
is  not  composed  of  parts,  nor  is  he  capable  of  extension,  but  the 
whole  Godhead  in  the  one  indivisible  essence  is  equally  present 
in  every  moment  of  eternal  duration  to  the  whole  of  infinite 
space,  and  to  every  part  of  it. 

22.  How  does  immensity  differ  from  omnipresence? 

Immensity  characterizes  the  relation  of  God  to  space  viewed 
abstractly  in  itself.  Omnipresence  characterizes  the  relation  of 
God  to  his  creatures  as  they  severally  occupy  their  several  posi- 
tions in  space.  The  divine  essence  is  immense  in  its  own  being, 
absolutely.     It  is  omnipresent  relatively  to  all  his  creatures. 

23.  What  are  the  different  modes  of  the  divine  presence,  and  how 
may  it  be  proved  that  Jie  is  everywhere  present  as  to  his  essence  ? 

God  may  be  conceived  of  as  present  in  any  place,  or  with  any 
creature,  in  several  modes,  first,  as  to  his  essence ;  second,  as  to 
his  knowledge;  third,  as  manifesting  that  presence  to  any  intel- 
ligent creature ;  fourth,  as  exercising  his  power  in  any  way  in 
or  upon  the  creature.  As  to  essence  and  knowledge,  his  pres- 
ence is  the  same  everywhere  and  always.  As  to  his  self-mani- 
festation and  the  exercise  of  his  power,  his  presence  differs 
endlessly  in  different  cases  in  degree  and  mode.  Thus  God  is 
present  to  the  church  as  he  is  not  to  the  world.  Thus  he  is 
present  in  hell  in  the  manifestation  and  execution  of  righteous 
wrath,  while  he  is  present  in  heaven  in  the  manifestation  and 
communication  of  gracious  love  and  glory. 

24.  Prove  that  God  is  omnipresent  as  to  his  essence. 

That  God  is  everywhere  present  as  to  his  essence  is  proved, 
first  from  Scripture  (1  Kings  viii.  27 ;  Ps.  cxxxix.  7-10 ;  Isa.  lxvi.  1 ; 
Acts  xvii.  27,  28);  second,  from  reason.  (1.)  It  follows  neces- 
sarily from  his  infinitude.  (2.)  From  the  fact  that  his  knowl- 
edge is  his  essence  knowing,  and  his  actions  are  his  essence 
acting.     Yet  his  knowledge  and  his  power  reach  to  all  things. 

25.  State  the  different  relations  that  bodies,  created  spirits,  and 
God  sustain  to  space. 

Turretin  says:  Bodies  are  conceived  of  as  existing  in  space 
circumscriptively,  because  occupying  a  certain  portion  of  space 
they  are  bounded  by  space  upon  every  side.  Created  spirits  do 
not  occupy  any  portion  of  space,  nor  are  they  embraced  by  any, 
they  are,  however,  in  space  definitely,  as  here  and  not  there. 
God,  on  the  other  hand,  is  in  space  repletively,  because  in  a  tran- 
scendent manner  his  essence  fills  all  space.     He  is  included  iu 


142  THE   ATTRIBUTES    OF   GOD. 

no  space;  he  is  excluded  from  none.     Wholly  present  to  each 
point,  he  comprehends  all  space  at  once. 

Time  and  Space  are  neither  substances,  nor  qualities,  nor 
mere  relations.  They  constitute  a  genus  by  themselves,  ab- 
solutely distinct  from  all  other  entities,  and  therefore  defying 
classification.  "We  know  that  space  and  time  exist;  we  know 
on  sufficient  evidence  that  God  exists;  but  we  have  no  means 
of  knowing  how  space  and  time  stand  related  to  God.  The 
view  taken  by  Sir  Isaac  Newton, — 'Deus  durat  semper  et  adest 
ubique,  et,  existendo  semper  et  ubique,  durationem  et  spatium 
constituit' — is  certainly  a  grand  one,  but  I  doubt  much  whether 
human  intelligence  can  dictatorially  affirm  that  it  is  as  true  as 
it  is  sublime." — McCosh,  "Intuitions  of  the  Mind,"  p.  212. 

The  Relation  of  God  to  Time. 

26.  What  is  eternity  ? 

Eternity  is  infinite  duration ;  duration  discharged  from  all 
limits,  without  beginning,  without  succession,  and  without  end. 
The  schoolmen  phrase  it  a  punctum  stans,  an  ever-abiding  present. 

We,  however,  can  positively  conceive  of  eternity  only  as  du- 
ration indefinitely  extended  from  the  present  moment  in  two 
directions,  as  to  the  past  and  as  to  the  future,  improperly 
expressed  as  eternity  a  parte  ante,  or  past,  and  eternity  a  parte 
post,  or  future.  The  eternity  of  God,  however,  is  one  and 
indivisible.     Etemitas  est  una  individua  et  tota  simul. 

27.  What  is  time? 

Time  is  limited  duration,  measured  by  succession,  either  of 
thought  or  motion.  It  is  distinguished  in  reference  to  our  per- 
ceptions into  past,  present,  and  future. 

28.  What  relation  does  time  bear  to  eternity  ? 

Eternity,  the  unchanging  present,  without  beginning  or  end, 
comprehends  all  time,  and  co-exists  as  an  undivided  moment, 
with  all  the  successions  of  time  as  they  appear  and  pass  in  their 
order. 

Thought  is  possible  to  us,  however,  only  under  the  limita- 
tions of  time  and  space.  We  can  conceive  of  God  only  under 
the  finite  fashion  of  first  purposing  and  then  acting,  of  first 
promising  or  threatening  and  then  fulfilling  his  word,  etc.  He 
that  inhabiteth  eternity  infinitely  transcends  our  understanding 
Isa.  lvii.  15. 

29.  When  we  say  that  God  is  eternal,  ivhat  do  ive  affirm  and 
what  do  we  deny  ? 


HIS   ETERNITY  AND    IMMUTABILITY.  143 

We  affirm,  first,  that  as  to  his  existence,  he  never  had  any 
beginning,  and  never  will  have  any  end;  second,  that  as  to  the 
mode  of  his  existence,  his  thoughts,  emotions,  purposes,  and 
acts  are,  without  succession,  one  and  inseparable,  the  same  for- 
ever; third,  that  he  is  immutable. 

We  deny,  first,  that  he  ever  had  a  beginning  or  ever  will 
have  an  end;  second,  that  his  states  or  modes  of  being  occur  in 
succession ;  third,  that  his  essence,  attributes,  or  purposes  will 
ever  change. 

30.  In  wJiat  sense  are  the  acts  of  God  spoken  of  as  past,  present 
and  future  ? 

The  acts  of  God  are  never  past,  present,  or  future  as  respects 
God  himself,  but  only  in  respect  to  the  objects  and  effects  of 
his  acts  in  the  creature.  The  efficient  purpose  comprehending 
the  precise  object,  time,  and  circumstance  was  present  to  him 
always  and  changelessly ;  the  event,  however,  taking  place  in 
the  creature  occurs  in  time,  and  is  thus  past,  present,  or  future 
to  our  observation. 

31.  In  wlxat  sense  are  events  past  or  future  as  it  regards  God  ? 

As  God's  knowledge  is  infinite,  every  event  must,  first,  be 
ever  equally  present  to  his  knowledge  from  eternity  to  eternity ; 
second,  these  events  must  be  known  to  him  as  they  actually 
occur  in  themselves,  e.  g.,  in  their  true  nature,  relations,  and  suc- 
cessions. This  distinction,  therefore,  holds  true — God's  knowl- 
edge of  all  events  is  without  beginning,  end,  or  succession ;  but 
he  knows  them  as  in  themselves  occurring  in  the  successions  of 
time,  past,  present,  or  future,  relatively  to  one  another. 

The  Immutability  of  God. 

32.  What  is  meant  by  the  immutability  of  God  ? 

By  his  immutability  we  mean  that  it  follows  from  the  in- 
finite perfection  of  God;  that  he  can  not  be  changed  by  any 
thing  from  without  himself;  and  that  he  will  not  change  from 
any  principle  within  himself.  That  as  to  his  essence,  his  will, 
and  his  states  of  existence,  he  is  the  same  from  eternity  to 
eternity.  Thus  he  is  absolutely  immutable  in  himself.  He 
is  also  immutable  relatively  to  the  creature,  insomuch  as  his 
knowledge,  purpose,  and  truth,  as  these  are  conceived  by  us  and 
are  revealed  to  us,  can  know  neither  variableness  nor  shadow  cf 
turning. — James  i.  17. 

33.  Prove  from  Scripture  and  reason  that  God  is  immutalile. 


144  THE   ATTRIBUTES    OF   GOD. 

1st.  Scripture :  Mai.  iii.  6 ;  Ps.  xxxiii.  11  ;  Isa.  xlvi.  10 ; 
James  i.  17. 

2d.  Keason:  (1.)  God  is  self  -  existent.  As  he  is  caused 
by  none,  but  causes  all,  so  he  can  be  changed  by  none,  but 
changes  all.  (2.)  He  is  the  absolute  being.  Neither  his  exist- 
ence, nor  the  manner  of  it,  nor  his  will,  are  determined  by  any 
necessaiy  relation  which  they  sustain  to  any  thing  exterior  to 
himself.  As  he  preceded  all  and  caused  all,  so  his  sovereign 
will  freely  determined  the  relations  which  all  things  are  per- 
mitted to  sustain  to  him.  (3.)  He  is  infinite  in  duration,  and 
therefore  he  can  not  know  succession  or  change.  (4.)  He  is 
infinite  in  all  perfection,  knowledge,  wisdom,  righteousness, 
benevolence,  will,  power,  and  therefore  can  not  change,  for 
nothing  can  be  added  to  the  infinite  nor  taken  from  it.  Any 
change  would  make  him  either  less  than  infinite  before,  or  less 
than  infinite  afterwards. 

34.  How  can  the  creation  of  the  world  and  the  incarnation  of 
tJie  Son  be  reconciled  with  Hue,  immutability  of  God  ? 

1st.  As  to  the  creation.  The  efficacious  purpose,  the  will 
and  power  to  create  the  world  dwelleth  in  God  from  eternity 
without  change,  but  this  very  efficacious  purpose  itself  provided 
that  the  effect  should  take  place  in  its  proper  time  and  order. 
This  effect  took  place  from  God,  but  of  course  involved  no 
shadow  of  change  in  God,  as  nothing  was  either  taken  from 
him  or  added  to  him. 

2d.  As  to  the  incarnation.  The  divine  Son  assumed  a  cre- 
ated human  nature  into  personal  union  with  himself.  His  un- 
created essence  of  course  was  not  changed.  His  eternal  person 
was  not  changed  in  itself,  but  only  brought  into  a  new  relation. 
The  change  effected  by  that  stupendous  event  occurred  only  in 
the  created  nature  of  the  man  Christ  Jesus. 

The  Infinite  Intelligence  of  God. 

35.  How  does  God's  mode  of  knowing  differ  from  ours  ? 

God's  knowledge  is,  1st,  his  essence  knowing;  2d,  it  is  one 
eternal,  all-comprehensive,  indivisible  act. 

(1.)  It  is  not  discursive,  i.  e.,  proceeding  logically  from  the 
known  to  the  unknown;  but  intuitive,  i.  e.,  discerning  all  things 
directly  in  its  own  light. 

(2.)  It  is  independent,  i.  e.,  it  does  in  no  way  depend  upon 
his  creatures  or  their  actions,  but  solely  upon  his  own  infinite 
intuition  of  all  things  possible  in  the  light  of  his  own  reason, 
and  of  all  things  actual  and  future  in  the  light  of  his  own  eter- 
nal purpose. 


THE    OBJECTS    OF  DIVINE    KNOWLEDGE.  145 

(3.)  It  is  total  and  simultaneous,  not  successive.  It  is  one 
single,  indivisible  act  of  intuition,  beholding  all  things  in 
themselves,  their  relations  and  successions,  as  ever  present. 

(4.)  It  is  perfect  and  essential,  not  relative,  i.  e.,  he  knowa 
all  things  directly  in  their  hidden  essences,  while  we  know 
them  only  by  their  properties,  as  they  stand  related  to  our 
senses. 

(5.)  We  know  the  present  imperfectly,  the  past  we  remem- 
ber dimly,  the  future  we  know  not  at  all.  But  God  knows  all 
things,  past,  present,  and  future,  by  one  total,  unsuccessive,  all- 
comprehensive  vision. 

36.  Hoiv  has  this  divine  perfection  been  defined  by  theologians  ? 

Turretin,  Locus  iii.,  Q.  12.  —  "Concerning  the  knowledge 
of  God,  before  all  else,  two  things  are  to  be  considered,  viz., 
its  mode  and  its  object.  The  Mode  of  the  divine  knowledge 
consists  in  this,  that  he  perfectly,  individually,  distinctly,  and 
immutably  knows  all  things,  and  his  knowledge  is  thus  distin- 
guished from  the  knowledge  of  men  and  angels.  He  knows 
all  things  perfectly,  because  he  has  known  them  through  him- 
self, or  his  own  essence,  and  not  by  the  phenomena  of  things, 
as  the  creatures  know  objects.  ...  2.  He  knows  all  things 
individually  because  he  knows  them  intuitively,  by  a  direct  act 
of  cognition,  and  not  inferential ly,  by  a  process  of  discursive 
reasoning,  or  by  comparing  one  thing  with  another.  . 
3.  He  knows  all  things  distinctly,  not  that  he  unites  by  a  dif- 
ferent conception  the  various  predicates  of  things,  but  that  he 
sees  through  all  things  by  one  most  distinct  act  of  intuition, 
and  nothing,  even  the  least  thing,  escapes  him.  ...  4.  And 
he  knows  all  immutably,  because  that  with  him  there  is  no 
shadow  of  change,  and  he  remaining  himself  unmoved,  moves 
all  things,  and  so  perceives  all  the  various  changes  of  things, 
by  one  immutable  act  of  cognition." 

37.  How  may  the  objects  of  divine  knowledge  be  classified  ? 

1st.  God  himself  in  his  own  infinite  being.  It  is  evident 
that  this,  ti'anscending  the  sum  of  all  other  objects,  is  the  only 
adequate  object  of  a  knowledge  really  infinite. 

2d.  All  possible  objects,  as  such,  whether  they  are  or  ever 
have  been,  or  ever  will  be  or  not,  seen  in  the  light  of  his  own 
infinite  reason. 

3d.  All  things  actual,  which  have  been,  are,  or  will  be,  he 
comprehends  in  one  eternal,  simultaneous  act  of  knowledge, 
as  ever  present  actualities  to  him,  and  as  known  to  be  such  in 
the  light  of  his  own  sovereign  and  eternal  purpose. 


146  THE    ATTRIBUTES    OF   GOD. 

38.  What  is  the  technical  designation  of  the  knoiuledge  of  thing* 
possible,  and  tuhat  is  tlve  foundation  of  that  knoiuledge  ? 

Its  technical  designation  is  scientia  simplicis  intelligentia3, 
knoiuledge  of  simple  intelligence,  so  called,  because  it  is  conceived 
by  us  as  an  act  simply  of  the  divine  intellect,  without  any  con- 
current act  of  the  divine  will.  For  the  same  reason  it  has  been 
styled  scientia,  necessaria,  necessary  knowledge,  i.  e.,  not  volun- 
tary, or  determined  by  will.  The  foundation  of  that  knowl- 
edge is  God's  essential  and  infinitely  perfect  knowledge  of  his 
own  omnipotence. 

39.  Wliat  is  the  technical  designation  of  tJie  knoiuledge  of  things 
actual,  whetJier  past,  present,  or  future,  and  luhat  is  tlte  foundation 
of  that  knowledge  ? 

It  is  called  scientia  visionis,  knoiuledge  of  vision,  and  scientia 
libera,  free  knowledge,  because  his  intellect  is  in  this  case  con- 
ceived of  as  being  determined  by  a  concurrent  act  of  his  will. 

The  foundation  of  this  knowledge  is  God's  infinite  knowl- 
edge of  his  own  all-comprehenfeive  and  unchangeable  eternal 
purpose. 

40.  Prove  that  the  knowledge  of  God  extends  to  future  contingent 
events. 

The  contingency  of  events  in  our  view  of  them  has  a  two- 
fold ground:  first,  their  immediate  causes  may  be  by  us  inde- 
terminate, as  in  the  case  of  the  dice;  second,  their  immediate 
cause  may  be  the  volition  of  a  free  agent.  The  first  class  are 
in  no  sense  contingent  in  God's  view.  The  second  class  are 
foreknown  by  him  as  contingent  in  then  cause,  but  as  none 
the  less  certain  in  their  event. 

That  he  does  foreknow  all  such  is  certain — 

1st.  Scripture  affirms  it. — 1  Sam.  xxiii.  11,  12;  Acts  ii.  23; 
xv.  18;  Isa.  xlvi.  9,  10. 

2d.  He  has  often  predicted  contingent  events  future,  at 
the  time  of  the  prophecy,  which  has  been  fulfilled  in  the  event 
Mark  xiv.  30. 

3d.  God  is  infinite  in  all  his  perfections,  his  knowledge, 
therefore,  must  (1)  be  perfect,  and  comprehend  all  things  future 
as  well  as  past,  (2)  independent  of  the  creature.  He  knows  all 
things  in  themselves  by  his  own  light,  and  can  not  depejid 
upon  the  will  of  the  creature  to  make  his  knowledge  eithei 
more  certain  or  more  complete. 

41.  How  can  the  certainty  of  the  foreknowledge  of  God  be  ream 
died  luith  the  freedom  of  moral  agents  in  their  acts  ? 


SCIENTIA    MEDIA.  147 

The  difficulty  here  presented  is  of  this  nature.  God's  fore- 
knowledge is  certain;  the  event,  therefore,  must  be  certainly 
future ;  if  certainly  future,  how  can  the  agent  be  free  in 
enacting  it. 

In  order  tc  avoid  this  difficulty  some  theologians,  on  the 
one  hand,  have  denied  the  reality  of  man's  moral  freedom,  while 
others,  on  the  other  hand,  have  maintained  that,  God's  knowl- 
edge being  free,  he  voluntarily  abstains  from  knowing  what  his 
creatures  endowed  with  free  agency  will  do. 

We  remark — 

1st.  God's  certain  foreknowledge  of  all  future  events  and 
man's  free  agency  are  both  certain  facts,  impregnably  es- 
tablished by  independent  evidence.  We  must  believe  both, 
whether  we  can  reconcile  them  or  not. 

2d.  Although  necessity  is  inconsistent  with  liberty,  moral 
certainty  is  not,  as  is  abundantly  shown  in  Chapter  XV., 
Question  25. 

42.  JVJiat  is  scientia  media  ? 

This  is  the  technical  designation  of  God's  knowledge  of 
future  contingent  events,  presumed,  by  the  authors  of  this  dis- 
tinction, to  depend  not  upon  the  eternal  purpose  of  God  making 
the  event  certain,  but  upon  the  free  act  of  the  creature  as  fore- 
seen by  a  special  intuition.  It  is  called  scientia  media,  middle 
knowledge,  because  it  is  supposed  to  occupy  a  middle  ground 
between  the  knowledge  of  simple  intelligence  and  the  knowledge 
of  vision.  It  differs  from  the  former,  since  its  object  is  not  all 
possible  things,  but  a  special  class  of  things  actually  future.  It 
differs  from  the  latter,  since  its  ground  is  not  the  eternal  purpose 
of  God,  but  the  free  action  of  the  creature  as  simply  foreseen. 

43.  By  whom  was  this  distinction  introduced,  and  for  what 
purpose  ? 

By  Luis  Molina,  a  Jesuit,  born  1535  and  died  1601,  pro- 
fessor of  theology  in  the  University  of  Evora,  Portugal,  in 
his  work  entitled  "  Liberi  arbitrii  cum  gratiae  donis,  divina 
prasscientia,  praedestinatione  et  reprobatione  concordia." — Ha- 
genbach's  "Hist,  of  Doc,"  vol.  2,  p.  280.  It  was  excogitated  for 
the  purpose  of  explaining  how  God  might  certainly  foreknow 
what  his  free  creatures  would  do  in  the  absence  of  any  sover- 
eign foreordination  on  his  part,  determining  their  action.  Thus 
making  his  foreordination  of  men  to  happiness  or  misery  to 
depend  upon  his  foreknowledge  of  their  faith  and  obedience, 
and  denying  that  his  foreknowledge  depends  upon  his  sover 
eign  foreordination. 


148  THE    ATTRIBUTES    OF   GOD. 

44.  Wliat  are  tJie  arguments  against  the  validity  of  this  dis- 
tinction? 

1st.  The  arguments  upon  which  it  is  based  are  untenable. 
Its  advocates  plead — (1.)  Scripture. — 1  Sam.  xxiii.  9-12;  Matt, 
xi.  22,  23.  (2.)  That  this  distinction  is  obviously  necessary,  in 
order  to  render  the  mode  of  the  divine  foreknowledge  consist- 
ent with  man's  free  agency. 

To  the  first  argument  we  answer,  that  the  events  mentioned 
in  the  above-cited  passages  of  Scripture  were  not  future.  They 
simply  teach  that  God,  knowing  all  causes,  free  and  necessary, 
knows  how  they  would  act  under  any  proposed  condition. 
Even  we  know  that  if  we  add  fire  to  powder  an  explosion 
would  ensue.  This  comes  under  the  first  class  we  cited  above 
(Question  38),  or  the  knowledge  of  all  possible  things.  To  the 
second  argument  we  answer,  that  the  certain  foreknowledge 
of  God  involves  the  certainty  of  the  future  free  act  of  his  crea- 
ture as  much  as  his  foreordination  does;  and  that  the  sovereign 
foreordination  of  God,  with  respect  to  the  free  acts  of  men,  only 
makes  them  certainly  future,  and  does  not  in  the  least  provide 
for  causing  those  acts  in  any  other  way  than  by  the  free  will 
of  the  creature  himself  acting  freely. 

2d.  This  middle  knowledge  is  unnecessary,  because  all  pos- 
sible objects  of  knowledge,  all  possible  things,  and  all  things 
actually  to  be,  have  already  been  embraced  under  the  two 
classes  already  cited  (Questions  38,  39). 

3d.  If  God  certainly  foreknows  any  future  event,  then  it 
must  be  certainly  future,  and  he  must  have  foreknown  it  to  be 
certainly  future,  either  because  it  was  antecedently  certain,  or 
because  his  foreknowing  it  made  it  certain.  If  his  foreknow- 
ing it  made  it  certain,  then  his  foreknowledge  involves  foreor- 
dination. If  it  was  antecedently  certain,  then  we  ask,  what 
could  have  made  it  certain,  except  what  we  affirm,  the  decree 
of  God,  either  to  cause  it  himself  immediately,  or  to  cause  it 
through  some  necessary  second  cause,  or  that  some  free  agent 
should  cause  it  freely?  We  can  only  choose  between  the  fore- 
ordination of  God  and  a  blind  fate. 

4th.  This  Anew  makes  the  knowledge  of  God  to  depend  upon 
the  acts  of  his  creatures  exterior  to  himself.  This  is  both 
absurd  and  impious,  if  God  is  infinite,  eternal,  and  absolute. 

5th.  The  Scriptures  teach  that  God  does  foreordain  as  well 
as  foreknow  the  free  acts  of  men. — Isa.  x.  5-15;  Acts  ii.  23; 
iv.  27,  28. 

45  How  does  wisdom  differ  from  knowledge,  and  wherein  does 
the  wisdom  of  God  consist  ? 


THE   INFINITE   POWER    OF   GOD.  149 

Knowledge  is  a  simple  act  of  the  understanding,  apprehend- 
ing that  a  thing  is,  and  comprehending  its  nature  and  relations, 
or  hoiv  it  is. 

Wisdom  presupposes  knowledge,  and  is  the  practical  use 
which  the  understanding,  determined  by  the  will,  makes  of 
the  material  of  knowledge.  God's  wisdom  is  infinite  and  eter- 
nal. It  is  conceived  of  by  us  as  selecting  the  highest  possible 
end,  the  manifestation  of  his  own  glory,  and  then  in  selecting 
and  directing  in  every  department  of  his  operations  the  best 
possible  means  to  secure  that  end.  This  wisdom  is  gloriously 
manifested  to  us  in  the  great  theatres  of  creation,  providence 
and  grace. 

The  Infinite  Power  op  God. 

46.  Wliat  is  meant  by  the  omnipotence  of  God? 

Power  is  that  efficiency  which,  by  an  essential  law  of 
thought,  we  recognize  as  inherent  in  a  cause  in  relation  to 
its  effect.  God  is  the  uncaused  first  cause,  and  the  causal 
efficiency  of  his  will  is  absolutely  unlimited  by  any  thing  out- 
side of  the  divine  perfections  themselves. 

47.  What  distinction  has  been  marked  between  the  Potestas  ab- 
soluta,  and  the  Potestas  ordinata  of  God? 

The  Scriptures  and  right  reason  teach  us  that  the  causal 
efficiency  of  God  is  not  confined  to  the  universe  of  second- 
causes  and  their  active  properties  and  laws.  The  phrase  Po- 
testas absoluta  expresses  the  omnipotence  of  God  absolutely 
considered  in  himself — and  specifically  that  infinite  reserve  of 
power  which  remains  with  him,  as  a  free  personal  attribute, 
above  and  beyond  all  the  powers  of  nature  and  his  ordinary 
providential  actings  upon  and  through  them.  Creation,  mira- 
cles, etc.,  are  exercises  of  this  power  of  God.  The  Potestas  or- 
dinata on  the  other  hand  is  the  power  of  God  as  it  is  now  exer- 
cised in  and  through  the  established  system  of  second  causes, 
in  the  ordinary  course  of  Providence.  Rationalists  and  advo- 
cates of  mere  naturalism,  who  deny  miracles,  and  any  form 
of  divine  interference  with  the  established  order  of  nature,  of 
course  admit  only  the  latter  and  deny  the  former  mode  of 
divine  power. 

48.  In  what  sense  is  the  power  of  God  limited  and  in  ivhat  sense 
is  it  unlimited  ? 

We  are  conscious  with  respect  to  our  own  causal  efficiency. 
1st.  That  it  is  very  limited.  We  have  direct  control  only  over 
the  course  of  our  thoughts,  and  the  contractions  of  a  few 
muscles.     2d.  That  we  depend  upon  the  use  of  means  to  pro* 


150  THE    ATTRIBUTES    OF   GOD. 

duce  the  effects  we  design.  3d.  We  are  dependent  upon  out> 
ward  circumstances  which  limit  and  condition  us  continually. 
The  power  inherent  in  the  divine  will  on  the  other  hand  can 
produce  whatever  effects  he  intends  immediately,  and  when  he 
condescends  to  use  means  he  freely  endows  them  with  what- 
ever efficiency  they  possess.  All  outward  circumstances  of 
every  kind  are  his  own  creation,  conditioned  upon  his  will, 
and  therefore  incapable  of  limiting  him  in  any  way.  He  is 
absolutely  unlimited  in  the  exercise  of  his  power.  He  can  not 
do  wrong,  nor  work  contradictions,  because  his  power  is  the 
causal  efficiency  of  an  infinitely  rational  and  righteous  essence. 
His  power  therefore  is  limited  only  by  his  own  perfections. 

49.  Is  the  distinction  in  us  between  power  and  wiU  a  perfection 
or  a  defect,  and  does  it  exist  in  God  ? 

It  is  objected  that  if  our  power  was  equal  to  our  design,  and 
every  volition  resulted  immediately  in  act,  we  would  not  be 
conscious  of  the  difference  between  power  and  will.  We  admit 
that  when  a  man's  power  fails  to  be  commensurate  with  his  will 
it  is  a  defect — and  that  this  never  is  the  case  with  God.  But 
on  the  other  hand  when  a  man  is  conscious  that  he  possesses 
powers  which  he  might  but  does  not  will  to  exercise,  he  is 
conscious  that  it  is  an  excellence — and  that  his  nature  is  the 
more  perfect  for  the  possession  of  such  reserves  of  power  than 
it  would  otherwise  be.  To  hold  that  there  is  nothing  in  God 
which  is  not  in  actual  exercise,  that  his  power  extends  no 
further  than  his  will,  is  to  make  him  no  greater  than  his  finite 
creation.  The  actions  of  a  great  man  impress  us  chiefly  as  the 
exponents  of  vastly  greater  power  which  remains  in  reserve. 
So  it  is  with  God. 

50.  How  can  absolute  omnipotence  be  proved  to  belong  to  God  ? 

1st.  It  is  asserted  by  Scripture. — Jer.  xxxii.  17;  Matt.  xix. 
26;  Luke  i.  37;  Rev.  xix.  6. 

2d.  It  is  necessarily  involved  in  the  very  idea  of  God  as  an 
infinite  being. 

3d.  Although  we  have  seen  but  part  of  Ms  ivays  (Job  xxvi. 
14),  yet  our  constantly  extending  experience  is  ever  revealing 
to  us  new  and  more  astonishing  evidences  of  his  power,  which 
always  indicate  an  inexhaustible  reserve. 

The  Will  of  God. 

51.  What  is  meant  by  the  ivill  of  God? 

The  will  of  God  is  the  infinitely  and  eternally  wise,  powerful, 
and  righteous  essence  of  God  willing.     In  our  conception  it  in 


THE    WILL    OF   GOD.  151 

that  attribute  of  the  Deity  to  which  we  refer  his  purposes  and 
decrees  as  their  principle. 

52.  In  ivhat  sense  is  the  will  of  God  said  to  be  free,  and  in  what 
sense  necessary  ? 

The  will  of  God  is  the  wise,  powerful,  and  righteous  essence 
of  God  willing.  His  will,  therefore,  in  every  act  is  certainly 
and  yet  most  freely  both  wise  and  righteous.  The  liberty  of 
indifference  is  evidently  foreign  to  his  nature,  because  the  per- 
fection of  wisdom  is  to  choose  the  most  wisely,  and  the  perfec- 
tion of  righteousness  is  to  choose  the  most  righteously. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  will  of  God  is  from  eternity  abso- 
lutely independent  of  all  his  creatures  and  all  their  actions. 

53.  What  is  intended  by  the  distinction  between  the  decretive  and 
the  preceptive  wiU  of  God  ? 

The  decretive  will  of  God  is  God  efficaciously  purposing  the 
certain  futurition  of  events.  The  preceptive  will  of  God  is  God, 
as  moral  governor,  commanding  his  moral  creatures  to  do  that 
which  he  sees  it  right  and  wise  that  they  in  their  circumstances 
should  do. 

These  are  not  inconsistent.  What  he  wills  as  our  duty  may 
very  consistently  be  different  from  what  he  wills  as  his  purpose. 
What  it  is  right  for  him  to  permit  may  be  wrong  for  him  to 
approve,  or  for  us  to  do. 

54.  What  is  meant  by  tJie  distinction  between  tlie  secret  and 
revealed  wiU  of  God  ? 

The  secret  will  of  God  is  his  decretive  will,  called  secret, 
because  although  it  is  sometimes  revealed  to  man  in  the  proph- 
ecies and  promises  of  the  Bible,  yet  it  is  for  the  most  part  hidden 
in  God. 

The  revealed  will  of  God  is  his  preceptive  will,  which  is 
always  clearly  set  forth  as  the  rule  of  our  duty. — Deut.  xxix.  29. 

55.  In  what  sense  do  tJie  Arminians  maintain  tlue  distinction 
between  the  antecedent  and  consequent  wiU  of  God,  and  what  are  tJie 
objections  to  tJieir  view  of  the  subject  ? 

This  is  a  distinction  invented  by  the  schoolmen,  and  adopted 
by  the  Arminians,  for  reconciling  the  will  of  God  with  their 
theory  of  the  free  agency  of  man. 

They  call  that  an  antecedent  act  of  God's  will  which  precedes 
the  action  of  the  creature,  e.  g.,  before  Adam  sinned  God  willed 
him  to  be  happy.  They  call  that  a  consequent  act  of  God's  will 
which  followed  the  act  of  the  creature,  and  is  consequent  upon 


152  THE    ATTRIBUTES    OF   GOD. 

that  act,  e.  g.,  after  Adam  sinned  God  willed  him  to  suffer  the 
penalty  due  to  his  sin. 

It  is  very  evident  that  this  distinction  does  not  truly  repre- 
sent the  nature  of  God's  will,  and  its  relation  to  the  acts  of  his 
creatures :  first,  God  is  eternal,  and  therefore  there  can  be  no 
distinction  in  his  purposes  as  to  time;  second,  God  is  eternally 
omniscient  and  omnipotent.  If  he  wills  any  thing,  therefore, 
he  must  from  the  beginning  will  the  means  to  acomplish  it,  and 
thus  secure  the  attainment  of  the  end  willed.  Otherwise  God 
must  have,  at  the  same  time,  two  inconsistent  wills  with  regard 
to  the  same  object.  The  truth  is  that  God,  eternally  and  un- 
changeably, by  one  comprehensive  act  of  will,  willed  all  that 
happened  to  Adam  from  beginning  to  end  in  the  precise  order 
and  succession  in  which  each  event  occurred;  third,  God  is  in- 
finitely independent.  It  is  degrading  to  God  to  conceive  of 
him  as  first  willing  that  which  he  has  no  power  to  effect,  and 
then  changing  his  will  consequently  to  the  independent  acts 
of  his  creatures. 

It  is  true,  indeed,  that  because  of  the  natural  limits  of  our 
capacities  we  necessarily  conceive  of  the  several  intentions  of 
God's  one,  eternal,  indivisible  purpose,  as  sustaining  a  certain 
logical  (not  temporal),  relation  to  each  other  as  principal  and 
consequent.  Thus  we  conceive  of  God's  first  (in  logical  order) 
decreeing  to  create  man,  then  to  permit  him  to  fall,  then  to 
elect  some  to  everlasting  life,  and  then  to  provide  a  redemp- 
tion.— Turretin. 

56.  In  what  sense  do  Arminians  hold  tJie  distinction  between 
the  absolute  and  conditional  will  of  God,  and  ivhat  are  the  objec- 
tions to  that  view  ? 

In  their  view  that  is  the  absolute  will  of  God  which  is  sus- 
pended upon  no  condition  without  himself,  e.  g.,  his  decree  to 
create  man.     That  is  the  conditional  will  of  God  which  is  sus- 

E ended  upon  a  condition,  e.  g.,  his  decree  to  save  those  that 
elieve,  i.  e.,  on  condition  of  their  faith. 

It  is  evident  that  this  view  is  entirely  inconsistent  with  the 
nature  of  God  as  an  eternal,  self-existent,  independent  being, 
infinite  in  all  his  perfections.  It  degrades  him  to  the  position 
of  being  simply  a  co-ordinate  part  of  the  creation,  mutually 
limiting  and  being  limited  by  the  creature. 

The  mistake  results  from  detaching  a  fragment  of  God's  will 
from  the  one  whole,  all-comprehensive,  eternal  purpose.  It  is 
evident  that,  when  properly  viewed  as  eternal  and  one,  God's 
purpose  must  comprehend  all  conditions,  as  well  as  their  con- 
sequents.    God's  will  is  suspended  upon  no  condition,  but  he 


THE    ABSOLUTE    JUSTICE    OF   GOD.  153 

eternally  wills  the  event  as  suspended  upon  its  condition,  and 
its  condition  as  determining  the  event. 

It  is  admitted  by  all  that  God's  preceptive  will,  as  expressed 
in  commands,  promises,  and  threatenings,  is  often  suspended 
upon  condition.  If  we  believe  we  shall  certainly  be  saved. 
This  is  the  relation  which  God  has  immutably  established 
between  faith  as  the  condition,  and  salvation  as  the  conse- 
quent, i.  e.,  faith  is  the  condition  of  salvation.  But  this  is 
something  very  different  from  saying  that  the  faith  of  Paul 
was  the  condition  of  God's  eternal  purpose  to  save  him,  be- 
cause the  same  purpose  determined  the  faith  as  the  condition, 
and  the  salvation  as  its  consequent.  See  further,  Chapter  X., 
on  the  decrees. 

57.  In  what  sense  is  the  ivill  of  God  said  to  be  eternal? 

It  is  one  eternal,  unsuccessive,  all-comprehensive  act,  abso- 
lutely determining  either  to  effect  or  to  permit  all  things,  in  all 
of  their  relations,  conditions,  and  successions,  which  ever  were, 
are,  or  ever  will  be. 

58.  In  ivhat  sense  may  the  wiU  of  God  be  said  to  be  tlie  rule  of 
righteousness  ? 

It  is  evident  that  in  the  highest  sense,  with  respect  to  God 
willing,  his  mere  will  can  not  be  regarded  as  the  ultimate 
ground  of  all  righteousness,  any  more  than  it  can  be  as  the 
ultimate  ground  of  all  wisdom.  Because,  in  that  case,  it  would 
follow,  first,  that  there  would  be  no  essential  difference  between 
right  and  wrong  in  themselves,  but  only  a  difference  arbitrarily 
constituted  by  God  himself;  and,  second,  that  it  would  be 
senseless  to  ascribe  righteousness  to  God,  for  then  that  would 
be  merely  to  say  that  he  wills  as  he  wills.  The  truth  is,  that 
his  will  acts  as  his  infinitely  righteous  wisdom  sees  to  be  right. 

On  the  other  hand,  God's  revealed  will  is  to  us  the  absolute 
and  ultimate  rule  of  righteousness,  alike  when  he  commands 
things  in  themselves  indifferent,  and  thus  makes  them  right,  as 
when  he  commands  things  in  themselves  essentially  right,  be- 
cause they  are  right. 


The  Absolute  Justice  op  God. 

59.   What  is  meant  by  tJie  distinctions,  absolute  and  relative, 
rectoral,  distributive,  and  punitive  or  vindicatory  justice  of  God? 

The  absolute  justice  of  God  is  the  infinite  moral  perfection 
or  universal  righteousness  of  his  own  being. 


154  THE   ATTRIBUTES    OF   GOD. 

The  relative  justice  of  God  is  his  infinitely  righteous  nature, 
viewed  as  exercised  in  his  relation  to  his  moral  creatures,  aa 
their  moral  governor. 

This  last  is  called  rectoral,  when  viewed  as  exercised  gen- 
erally in  administering  the  affairs  of  his  universal  government, 
in  providing  for  and  governing  his  creatures  and  their  actions. 
It  is  called  distributive,  when  viewed  as  exercised  in  giving 
unto  each  creature  his  exact  proportionate  due  of  rewards  or 
punishment.  It  is  called  punitive  or  vindicatory,  when  viewed 
as  demanding  and  inflicting  the  adequate  and  proportionate 
punishment  of  all  sin,  because  of  its  intrinsic  ill  desert. 

60.  What  are  the  different  opinions  as  to  the  nature  of  the. 
punitive  justice  of  God,  i.  e.,  what  are  the  different  reasons  as- 
signed why  God  punishes  sin? 

The  Socinians  deny  the  punitive  justice  of  God  altogether, 
and  maintain  that  he  punishes  sin  simply  for  the  good  of  the 
individual  sinner,  and  of  society,  only  so  far  as  it  may  be  inter- 
ested in  his  restraint  or  improvement.  Those  theologians  who 
maintain  the  governmental  theory  of  the  Atonement,  hold  that 
God  punishes  sin  not  because  of  a  changeless  principle  in 
himself  demanding  its  punishment,  but  for  the  good  of  the 
universe,  on  the  basis  of  great  and  changeless  principles  of 
governmental  policy.  Thus  resolving  justice  into  a  form  of 
general  benevolence.  Leibnitz  held  that  "justice  is  goodness 
conducted  by  wisdom."  This  principle  assumes  that  happiness 
is  the  chief  good.  That  the  essence  of  virtue  is  the  desire  to 
promote  happiness,  and  that  consequently  the  end  of  justice 
can  only  be  to  prevent  misery.  This  is  the  foundation  of  the 
Governmental  theory  of  the  Atonement.  See  Chapter  XXV. 
See  Park  on  the  "  Atonement." 

Some  hold  that  the  necessity  for  the  punishment  of  sin  is 
only  hypothetical,  i.  e.,  results  only  from  the  eternal  decree 
of  God. 

The  true  view  is  that  God  is  immutably  determined  by  his 
own  eternal  and  essential  righteousness  to  visit  every  sin  with 
a  proportionate  punishment. 

61.  Prove  that  disinterested  benevolence  is  not  Hue  whole  of 
virtue. 

1st.  Some  exercises  of  disinterested  benevolence,  for  example, 
natural  parental  affection,  are  purely  instinctive,  and  have  no 
positive  moral  character. 

2d.  Some  exercises  of  disinterested  benevolence,  such  as  the 
weak  yielding  of  a  judge  to  sympathy  with  a  guilty  man  or  hi8 
friends,  are  positively  immoral. 


THE    JUSTICE    OF   GOD.  155 

3d.  There  are  virtuous  principles  incapable  of  being  resolved 
into  disinterested  benevolence,  such  as  proper  prudential  re- 
gard for  one's  own  highest  good;  aspiration  and  effort  after 
personal  excellence;  holy  abhorrence  of  sin  for  its  own  sake, 
and  just  punishment  of  sin  in  order  to  vindicate  righteousness. 

4th.  The  idea  of  oughtness  is  the  essential  constitutive  idea 
of  virtue.  No  possible  analysis  of  the  idea  of  benevolence  will 
give  the  idea  of  moral  obligation.  This  is  simple,  unresolvable, 
ultimate.  Oughtness  is  the  genus,  and  benevolence  one  of  the 
species  comprehended  in  it. 

62.  State  the  evidence  derived  from  tJie  universal  princijjles  of 
human  nature,  that  tJie  justice  of  God  must  be  an  ultimate  and 
unchangeable  principle  of  his  nature,  determining  him  to  punish  sin 
because  of  its  intrinsic  ill  desert. 

The  obligation  of  a  righteous  ruler  to  punish  sin,  the  intrin- 
sic ill  desert  of  sin,  the  principle  that  sin  ought  to  be  punished., 
are  ultimate  facts  of  moral  consciousness.  They  can  not  be 
resolved  into  any  other  principle  whatsoever.     This  is  proved — 

1st.  Because  they  are  involved  in  every  awakened  sinner's 
consciousness  of  his  own  demerit. — Ps.  li.  4.  "I  have  done 
this  evil  in  thy  sight;  that  thou  mightest  be  just  when  thou 
speakest,  and  clear  when  thou  judgest."  In  its  higher  degree 
this  feeling  rises  into  remorse,  and  can  be  allayed  only  by  ex- 

Eiation.  Thus  many  murderers  have  had  no  rest  until  they 
ave  given  themselves  up  to  the  law,  when  they  have  experi- 
enced instant  relief.  And  millions  of  souls  have  found  peace 
in  the  application  of  the  blood  of  Jesus  to  their  wounded 
consciences. 

2d.  All  men  judge  thus  of  the  sins  of  others.  The  con- 
sciences of  all  good  men  are  gratified  when  the  just  penalty 
of  the  law  is  executed  upon  the  offender,  and  outraged  when 
he  escapes. 

3d.  This  principle  is  witnessed  to  by  all  the  sacrificial  rites 
common  to  all  ancient  religions,  by  the  penances  in  some  form 
universal  even  in  modern  times,  by  all  penal  laws,  and  by  the 
synonyms  for  guilt,  punishment,  justice,  etc.,  common  to  all 
languages. 

4th.  It  is  self-evident,  that  to  inflict  an  unjust  punishment 
is  itself  a  crime,  no  matter  how  benevolent  the  motive  which 
prompts  it,  nor  how  good  the  effect  which  follows  it.  It  is  no 
less  self-evident  that  it  is  the  justice  of  the  punishment  so  de- 
served which  renders  its  effect  on  the  community  good,  and 
not  its  effect  on  the  community  which  renders  it  just.  To 
hang  a  man  for  the  good  of  the  community  is  both  a  crime 
and  a  blunder,  unless  the  hanging  is  justified  by  the  ill  desert 


15G  THE   ATTRIBUTES    OF   GOD. 

of  the  man.     In  that  case  his  ill  desert  is  seen  by  all  the  com 
munity  to  be  the  real  reason  of  the  hanging. 

63.  Prove  the  same  from  the  nature  of  the  divine  law. 

Grotius  in  his  great  work,  uDefensio  Fidei  Catholicce  De  Sa- 
tisfactione  Christi"  in  which  he  originates  the  Governmental 
Theory  of  the  Atonement,  maintains  that  the  divine  law  is  a 
product  of  the  divine  will,  and  therefore  at  the  option  of  God 
relaxable,  alike  in  its  preceptive  and  its  penal  elements.  But 
the  truth  is  (a)  that  the  penalty  is  an  essential  part  of  the 
divine  law;  (&)  that  the  law  of  God,  as  to  all  its  essential  prin- 
ciples of  right  and  wrong,  is  not  a  product  of  the  divine  will, 
but  an  immutable  transcript  of  the  divine  nature ;  (c)  therefore 
the  law  is  immutable  and  must  needs  be  fulfilled  in  every  iota 
of  it.  _ 

This  is  proved — 1st.  Because  fundamental  principles  must 
have  their  changeless  ground  in  the  divine  nature,  or  (a)  other- 
wise the  distinction  between  right  and  wrong  would  be  purely 
arbitrary — whereas  they  are  discerned  by  our  moral  intuitions 
to  be  absolute  and  independent  of  all  volition  divine  or  human ; 
(J>)  otherwise  it  would  be  meaningless  to  say  that  God  is  right- 
ous  if  righteousness  be  an  arbitrary  creature  of  his  own  will ; 
(c)  because  he  declares  that  he  ucan  not  lie,"  that  "he  can  not 
deny  himself." 

2d.  The  Scriptures  declare  that  the  law  can  not  be  relaxed, 
that  it  must  be  fulfilled. — John  vii.  23,  and  x.  35 ;  Luke  xxiv.  44; 
Matt.  v.  25,  26. 

3d.  The  Scriptures  declare  that  Christ  came  to  fulfil  the  law 
not  to  relax  it. — Matt.  v.  17,  18 ;  Rom.  iii.  31 ;  x.  4. 

64.  How  may  it  be  argued  from  tJie  independence  and  absolide 
self-stifficiency  of  God,  that  punitive  justice  is  an  essential  attribute 
of  his  nature  ? 

It  is  inconsistent  with  these  essential  attributes  to  conceive 
of  God  as  obliged  to  any  course  of  action  by  the  external  exi- 
gencies of  his  creation.  Both  the  motive  and  the  end  of  his 
action  must  be  in  himself. — Col.  i.  16;  Rom.  xi.  36;  Eph.  i.  5,  6; 
Rom.  ix.  22,  23.  If  he  punishes  sin  because  determined  so  to 
do  by  the  principles  of  his  own  nature,  then  he  acts  independ- 
ently. But  if  he  resorts  to  this  merely  as  the  necessary  means 
of  restraining  and  governing  his  creatures,  then  their  actions 
control  his. 

65.  How  may  it  be  proved  from  Gods  love  of  holiness  and 
hatred  of  sin  ? 

God's  love  for  holiness  and  hatred  of  sin  is  represented  in 


THE    JUSTICE   OF   GOD.  157 

Scripture  as  essential  and  intrinsic.  He  loves  holiness  for  its 
own  sake.  He  hates  sin  and  is  determined  to  punish  it  be- 
cause of  its  intrinsic  ill  desert.  He  hates  the  wicked  every 
day.  —  Ps.  v.  5;  vii.  11.  "To  me  belongeth  vengeance  and 
recompense."  —  Deut.  xxxii.  35.  "According  to  their  deeds 
accordingly  he  will  repay." — Isa.  lix.  18 ;  2  Thess.  i.  6.  "  See- 
ing it  is  a  righteous  thing  with  God  to  recompense  tribulation 
to  them  that  trouble  you." — Koin.  i.  32.  "  Knowing  the  judg- 
ment of  God  that  they  which  commit  such  things  are  worthy 
of  death." — Deut.  xvii.  6;  xxi.  22. 

66.  Hoiu  can  this  truth  be  proved  from  what  the  Scriptures 
teach  as  to  the  nature  and  necessity  of  the  atonement  of  Christ  ? 

As  to  its  nature  the  Scriptures  teach  that  Christ  suffered 
the  penalty  of  sin  vicariously  in  the  place  and  stead  of  his 
elect  people,  and  that  he  thus  expiated  their  guilt,  and  recon- 
ciled God  and  redeemed  their  souls  by  giving  himself  the 
ransom  price  demanded  in  their  stead.  The  Scriptures  every- 
where, and  in  every  way  teach  that  the  design  of  Christ's  death 
was  to  produce  a  sin-expiating  effect  upon  the  Governor  of  the 
moral  universe,  and  not  a  moral  impression  either  upon  the 
heart  of  the  individual  sinner,  or  upon  the  public  conscience 
of  the  intelligent  universe.  All  this  will  be  proved  at  length 
under  Chapters  XXV  and  XXXIII. 

As  to  the  necessity  of  the  Atonement  the  Scriptures  teach 
that  it  was  absolute.  That  Christ  must  die  or  sinners  perish. 
Gal.  ii.  21,  and  iii.  21.  But  the  propriety  of  producing  a  moral 
impression  upon  each  sinner  personally,  or  upon  the  public 
mind  of  the  universe  generally,  can  not  give  rise  to  an  absolute 
necessity  on  the  part  of  God — since  God  who  created  the  uni- 
verse and  all  its  members  might,  of  course,  if  he  so  pleased, 
produce  moral  impressions  upon  them  of  whatever  kind,  either 
without  means,  or  by  whatsoever  means  he  pleases.  An  abso- 
lute necessity  must  have  its  ground  in  the  unchangeable  nature 
of  God,  which  lies  back  of  and  determines  his  will  in  all  its 
acts.  Therefore  the  eternal  nature  of  God  immutably  deter- 
mines him  to  punish  all  sin. 

"  Political  Science,"  President  Theodore  D.  Woolsey,  vol  I.,  pp.  330-335. 
"The  theory  that  correction  is  the  main  end  of  punishment  will  not 
bear  examination.  (1.)  The  state  is  not  a  humane  institution.  (2.)  The 
theory  makes  no  distinction  between  crimes.  If  a  murderer  is  appar- 
ently reformed  in  a  week,  the  ends  of  detention  are  accomplished,  and 
he  should  bo  set  free;  whde  the  petty  offender  must  stay  for  months 
or  years  until  the  inoculation  of  good  principles  becomes  manifest. 
(3.)  What  kind  of  correction  is  to  be  aimed  at  ?  Is  it  such  as  will  in- 
sure society  itself  against  his  repeating  his  crime  ?  In  that  case  it  is 
society,  and  not  the  person  himself  who  is  to  be  benefited  by  the  cor- 


158  THE    ATTRIBUTES    OF   GOD. 

rective  process.  Or  must  a  thorough  cure,  a  recovery  from  selfishness 
and  covetousness,  an  awakening  of  the  highest  principle  of  soul  be  aimed 
at;  an  established  church,  in  short,  be  set  up  in  the  house  of  correction  ? 

' '  The  explanation  that  the  state  protects  its  own  existence,  or  the  inno- 
cent inhabitants  of  the  country,  by  striking  its  subjects  with  awe  and 
deterring  them  from  evil-doing  through  punishment,  is  met  by  admitting 
that,  while  this  effect  is  real  and  important,  it  is  not  as  yet  made  out  that 
the  state  has  a  right  to  do  this.  Crime  and  desert  of  punishment  must 
be  pre-supposed  before  the  moral  sense  can  be  satisfied  with  the  inflic- 
tion of  evil.  And  the  measure  of  the  amount  of  punishment,  supplied 
by  the  public  good  for  the  time,  is  most  fluctuating  and  tyrannical; 
moreover  mere  awe,  unaccompanied  by  an  awakening  of  the  sense  of 
justice,  is  as  much  a  source  of  hatred  as  a  motive  to  obedience. " 

"  The  theory  that  in  punishing  an  evil-doer,  the  state  renders  to  him 
7iis  deserts,  is  the  only  one  that  seems  to  have  a  solid  foundation.  It 
assumes  that  moral  evil  has  been  committed  by  disobedience  to  rightfid 
commands,  that  according  to  a  propriety  which  commends  itself  to  our 
moral  nature  it  is  fit  and  right  that  evil,  physical  or  mental,  suffering 
or  shame,  should  be  incurred  by  the  wrong-doer,  and  that  in  all  forms 
of  government  over  moral  beings  there  ought  to  be  a  power  able  to 
decide  how  much  evil  ought  to  follow  special  kinds  and  instances  of 
transgressions.  The  state  is  in  fact,  as  St.  Paul  calls  it,  the  minister  of 
God  to  execute  wrath  upon  him  that  doeth  evil.  But  only  in  a  very 
limited  sphere  and  for  special  ends.  .  .  It  punishes  acts,  not  thoughts; 
intentions  appearing  in  acts,  not  feelings;  it  punishes  persons  within  a 
certain  territory  over  which  it  has  the  jurisdiction,  and  perhaps  its  sub- 
jects who  do  wrong  elsewhere,  but  none  else;  it  punishes  acts  hurtful  to 
its  own  existence  and  to  the  community  of  its  subjects;  it  punishes  not 
according  to  an  exact  scale  of  deserts,  for  it  can  not,  without  a  revelation, 
find  out  what  the  deserts  of  individuals  are,  nor  what  is  the  relative  guilt 
of  different  actions  of  different  persons."  * 

The  Absolute  Goodness  of  God. 

67.  What  distinctions  are  signified  by  the  terms  benevolence, 
complacency,  mercy,  and  grace  ? 

The  infinite  goodness  of  God  is  a  glorious  perfection  which 
pre-eminently  characterizes  his  nature,  and  which  he,  in  an 
infinitely  wise,  righteous,  and  sovereign  manner,  exercises 
towards  his  creatures  in  various  modes  according  to  their  rela- 
tions and  conditions. 

Benevolence  is  the  goodness  of  God  viewed  generically.  It 
embraces  all  his  creatures,  except  the  judicially  condemned  on 
account  of  sin,  and  provides  for  their  welfare. 

The  love  of  complacency  is  that  approving  affection  with 
which  God  regards  his  own  infinite  perfections,  and  every 
image  and  reflection  of  them  in  his  creatures,  especially  in  the 
sanctified  subjects  of  the  new  creation. 

God's  mercy,  of  which  the  more  passive  forms  are  pity  and 

*  This  extract  is  slightly  condensed. 


THE    GOODNESS    OF   GOD.  159 

compassion,  is  the  divine  goodness  exercised  with  respect  to 
the  miseries  of  his  creatures,  feeling  for  them,  and  making  pro- 
vision for  their  relief,  and  in  the  case  of  impenitent  sinners, 
leading  to  long-suifering  patience. 

The  grace  of  God  is  his  goodness  seeking  to  communicate 
his  favors,  and,  above  all,  the  fellowship  of  his  own  life  and 
blessedness  to  his  moral  creatures, — who,  as  creatures,  must  be 
destitute  of  all  merit, — and  pre-eminently  his  electing  love,  se- 
curing at  infinite  cost  the  blessedness  of  its  objects,  who,  as 
sinful  creatures,  were  positively  ill  deserving. 

68.  State  a  false  definition  of  divine  benevolence  often  given,  and 
state  how  it  is  rigidly  defined. 

The  infinite  Benevolence  of  God  is  often  defined  as  that 
attribute  in  virtue  of  which  he  communicates  to  all  his  crea- 
tures the  greatest  possible  amount  of  happiness,  i.  e.,  as  great  as 
they  are  capable  of  receiving,  or  as  great  as  is  consistent  with 
the  attainment  of  the  greatest  amount  of  happiness  on  the  ag- 
gregate in  the  moral  universe. 

But  this  supposes  that  God  is  limited  by  something  out  of 
himself,  that  he  could  not  have  secured  more  happiness  for  his 
creatures  than  he  has  actually  done.  It  also  makes  happiness 
paramount  in  the  view  of  God  to  excellence. 

Benevolence  should,  on  the  other  hand,  be  defined  as  that 
attribute  in  virtue  of  which  God  produces  all  the  happiness  in 
the  universe,  which  is  consistent  with  the  end  he  had  in  view 
in  its  creation.  These  ends  stand  in  this  order.  1.  The  mani- 
festation of  his  own  glory.  2.  The  highest  moral  excellence 
of  his  creatures.  3.  Their  highest  blessedness  in  himself. — Dr. 
Charles  Hodge's  Lectures. 

69.  What  are  tlve  sources  of  our  knowledge  of  the  fact  that  God 
is  benevolent? 

1st.  Keason.     Benevolence  is  an  essential  element  of  moral 

Eerfection.     God  is  infinitely  perfect,  and  therefore  infinitely 
enevolent. 

2d.  Experience  and  observation.  The  wisdom  of  God  in 
designing,  and  the  power  of  God  in  executing,  in  the  several 
spheres  of  creation,  providence,  and  revealed  religion,  have  evi- 
dently been  constantly  determined  by  benevolent  intentions. 

3d.  The  direct  assertions  of  Scripture. — Ps.  clxv.  8,  9 ;  1 
John  iv.  8. 

70.  How  may  it  be  proved  that  God  is  gracious  and  willing  to 
forgive  sin  ? 

Neither  reason  nor  conscience  can  ever  raise  a  presumption 


160  THE    ATTRIBUTES    OF   GOD. 

on  this  subject.  It  is  the  evident  duty  of  fellow-creatures  mu- 
tually to  forgive  injuries,  but  we  have  nothing  to  do  with  for- 
giving sin  as  sin. 

It  appears  plain  that  there  can  be  no  moral  principle  making 
it  essential  for  a  sovereign  ruler  to  forgive  sin  as  trangression 
of  law.  All  that  reason  or  conscience  can  assure  us  of  in  that 
regard  is,  that  sin  can  not  be  forgiven  without  an  atonement. 
The  gracious  affection  which  should  prompt  such  a  ruler  to 
provide  an  atonement,  must,  from  its  essential  nature,  be  per- 
fectly free  and  sovereign,  and  therefore  it  can  be  known  only 
so  far  as  it  is  graciously  revealed.  The  gospel  is,  therefore, 
good  news  confirmed  by  signs  and  wonders. — Ex.  xxxiv.  6,  7; 
Eph.  i.  7-9. 

71.  What  are  the  different  theories  or  assumptions  on  which  it 
has  been  attempted  to  reconcile  tJie  existence  of  sin  with  the  goodness 
of  God? 

1st.  It  has  been  argued  by  some  that  free  agency  is  essential 
to  a  moral  system,  and  that  absolute  independence  of  will  is 
essential  to  free  agency.  That  to  control  the  wills  of  free 
agents  is  no  more  an  object  of  power  than  the  working  of 
contradictions;  and  consequently  God,  although  omnipotent, 
could  not  prevent  sin  in  a  moral  system  without  violating  its 
nature.— See  Dr.  N.  W.  Taylor's  "Concio  ad  Clerum,"  1828. 

2d.  Others  have  argued  that  sin  was  permitted  by  God  in 
infinite  wisdom  as  the  necessary  means  to  the  largest  possible 
measure  of  happiness  in  the  universe  as  a  whole. 

On  both  of  these  we  remark — 

1st.  That  the  first  theory  above  cited  is  founded  on  a  false 
view  of  the  conditions  of  human  liberty  and  responsibility  (see 
below,  Chapter  XV.);  and,  further,  that  it  grossly  limits  the 
power  of  God  by  representing  him  as  desiring  and  attempting 
what  he  can  not  effect,  and  that  it  makes  him  dependent  upon 
his  creatures. 

2d.  With  reference  to  the  second  theory  it  should  be  remem- 
bered that  God's  own  glory,  and  not  the  greatest  good  of  the 
universe,  is  the  great  end  of  God  in  creation  and  providence. 

3d.  The  permission  of  sin,  in  its  relation  both  to  the  right- 
eousness and  goodness  of  God,  is  an  insolvable  mystery,  and 
all  attempts  to  solve  it  only  darken  counsel  with  words«»vithout 
knowledge.  It  is,  however,  the  privilege  of  our  faith  to  know, 
though  not  of  our  philosophy  to  comprehend,  that  it  is  assur- 
edly a  most  wise,  righteous,  and  merciful  permission ;  and  that 
it  shall  redound  to  the  glory  of  God  and  to  the  good  of  his 
chosen. 


THE    TRUTH   OF   GOD.  161 

72.  How  can  the  attributes  of  goodness  and  justice  be  shoiun  to 
be  consistent  ? 

Goodness  and  justice  are  the  several  aspects  of  one  un- 
changeable, infinitely  wise,  and  sovereign  moral  perfection. 
God  is  not  sometimes  merciful  and  sometimes  just,  nor  so  far 
merciful  and  so  far  just,  but  he  is  eternally  infinitely  merciful 
and  just.  Relatively  to  the  creature  this  infinite  perfection  of 
nature  presents  different  aspects,  as  is  determined  by  the  judg- 
ment which  infinite  wisdom  delivers  in  each  individual  case. 

Even  in  our  experience  these  attributes  of  our  moral  nature 
are  found  not  to  be  inconsistent  in  principle,  though  our  want 
both  of  wisdom  and  knowledge,  a  sense  of  our  own  unworthi- 
ness,  and  a  mere  physical  sympathy,  often  sadly  distract  our 
judgments  as  well  as  our  hearts  in  adjusting  these  principles 
to  the  individual  cases  of  life. 

God's  Absolute  Truth. 

73.  What  is  truth  considered  as  a  divine  attribute  ? 

The  truth  of  God  in  its  widest  sense  is  a  perfection  which 
qualifies  all  his  intellectual  and  moral  attributes.  His  knowl- 
edge is  infinitely  true  in  relation  to  its  objects,  and  his  wisdom 
unbiassed  either  by  prejudice  or  passion.  His  justice  and  his 
goodness  in  all  their  exercises  are  infinitely  true  to  the  perfect 
standard  of  his  own  nature.  In  all  outward  manifestations  of 
his  perfections  to  his  creatures,  God  is  always  true  to  his  nature 
— always  self-consistently  divine.  This  attribute  in  its  more 
special  sense  qualifies  all  God's  intercourse  with  his  rational 
creatures.  He  is  true  to  us  as  well  as  to  himself;  and  thus  is 
laid  the  foundation  of  all  faith,  and  therefore  of  all  knowledge. 
It  is  the  foundation  of  all  confidence,  first,  in  our  senses ;  second, 
in  our  intellect  and  conscience ;  third,  in  any  authenticated,  su- 
pernatural revelation. 

The  two  forms  in  which  this  perfection  is  exercised  in  rela- 
tion to  us  are,  first,  his  entire  truth  in  all  his  communications; 
second,  his  perfect  sincerity  in  undertaking  and  faithfulness  in 
discharging  all  his  engagements. 

74.  How  can  the  truth  of  God  be  reconciled  ivith  tJie  apparent 
non-performance  of  some  of  his  threate?iings  ? 

The  promises  and  threatenings  of  God  are  sometimes  abso 
lute,  when  they  are  always  infallibly  fulfilled  in  the  precise 
sense  in  which  he  intended  them.  They  are  often  also  condi- 
tional, made  to  depend  upon  the  obedience  or  repentance  of  the 


1G2  THE    ATTRIBUTES    OF   GOD. 

creature. — Jonah  iii.  4,  10;  Jer.  xviii.  7,  8.  This  condition  may 
be  either  expressed  or  implied,  because  the  individual  case  is 
understood  to  be,  of  course,  governed  by  the  general  principle 
that  genuine  repentance  and  faith  delivers  from  every  threat- 
ening and  secures  every  promise. 

75.  How  can  the  invitations  and  exhortations  of  the  Scriptures, 
addressed  to  those  whom  God  does  not  propose  to  save,  be  reconciled 
with  his  sincerity  ? 

See  above  (Question  42),  the  distinction  between  God's  pre- 
ceptive and  his  decretive  will.  His  invitations  and  exhorta- 
tions are  addressed  to  all  men  in  good  faith:  first,  because  it  is 
every  man's  duty  to  repent  and  believe,  and  it  is  God's  preceptive 
will  that  every  man  should;  second,  because  nothing  ever  pre- 
vents the  obedience  of  any  sinner,  except  his  own  unwilling- 
ness; third,  because  in  every  case  in  which  the  condition  is 
fulfilled  the  promise  implied  will  be  performed;  fourth,  God 
never  has  promised  to  enable  every  man  to  believe;  fifth,  these 
invitations  and  exhortations  are  not  addressed  to  the  reprobate 
as  such,  but  to  all  sinners  as  such,  with  the  avowed  purpose  of 
saving  thereby  the  elect. 

The  Infinite  Sovereignty  op  God. 

76.  What  is  meant  by  the  sovereignty  of  God  ? 

His  absolute  right  to  govern  and  dispose  of  all  his  creatures, 
simply  according  to  his  own  good  pleasure. 

77.  Prove  that  this  right  is  asserted  in  Scripture. 

Dan.  iv.  25,  35;  Rev.  iv.  11;  1  Tim.  vi.  15;  Rom.  ix.  15-23. 

78.  On  what  does  the  absolute  sovereignty  of  God  rest? 

1st.  His  infinite  superiority  in  being  and  in  all  his  perfec- 
tions to  any  and  to  all  his  creatures. 

2d.  As  creatures  they  were  created  out  of  nothing,  and  are 
now  sustained  in  being  by  his  power,  for  his  own  glory  and 
according  to  his  own  good  pleasure. — Rom.  xi.  36. 

3d.  His  infinite  benefits  to  us,  and  our  dependence  upon 
and  blessedness  in  him,  are  reasons  why  we  should  not  only 
recognize,  but  rejoice,  in  this  glorious  truth.  The  Lord  reign- 
eth,  let  the  earth  rejoice. 

79.  Is  there  any  sense  in  which  there  are  limits  to  the  sovereignty 
of  God? 

The  sovereignty  of  God,  viewed  abstractly  as  one  attribute 
among  many,  must  of  course  be  conceived  of  as  qualified  by  all 


THE    HOLINESS    OF   GOD.  1G3 

the  rest.    It  can  not  be  otherwise  than  an  infinitely  wise,  right- 
eous, and  merciful  sovereignty. 

But  God,  viewed  concretely  as  an  infinite  sovereign,  is  abso- 
lutely unlimited  by  any  thing  without  himself.  "  He  doeth 
according  to  his  will  in  the  army  of  heaven,  and  among  the 
inhabitants  of  the  earth." — Dan.  iv.  35. 


The  Infinite  Holiness  of  God. 
80.  What  is  meant  by  the  holiness  of  God  ? 

The  holiness  of  God  is  not  to  be  conceived  of  as  one  attri- 
bute among  others;  it  is  rather  a  general  term  representing 
the  conception  of  his  consummate  perfection  and  total  glory. 
It  is  his  infinite  moral  perfection  crowning  his  infinite  intelli- 
gence and  power.  There  is  a  glory  of  each  attribute,  viewed 
abstractly,  and  a  glory  of  the  whole  together.  The  intellectual 
nature  is  the  essential  basis  of  the  moral.  Infinite  moral  per- 
fection is  the  crown  of  the  Godhead.  Holiness  is  the  total 
glory  thus  crowned. 

Holiness  in  the  Creator  is  the  total  perfection  of  an  infinitely 
righteous  intelligence.  Holiness  in  the  creature  is  not  mere 
moral  perfection,  but  perfection  of  the  created  nature  of  moral 
agents  after  their  kind,  in  spiritual  union  and  fellowship  with 
the  infinite  Creator. — 1  John  i.  3. 

The  word  holiness,  as  applied  to  God  in  Scripture,  repre- 
sents, first,  moral  purity — Lev.  xi.  44;  Ps.  cxlv.  17;  second, 
his  transcendently  august  and  venerable  majesty. — Isa.  vi.  3 ; 
Ps.  xxii.  3;  Rev.  iv.  8. 

To  "sanctify  the  Lord,"  i.  e.,  to  make  him  holy,  is  to  de- 
clare and  adore  his  holiness  by  venerating  his  august  majesty 
wherever  and  whereinsoever  his  person  or  character  is  repre- 
sented.— Isa.  viii.  13;  xxix.  23;  Ezek.  xxxviii.  23;  Matt.  vi.  9; 
1  Pet.  iii.  15. 


CHAPTER   IX. 

THE    HOLY    TRINITY. 

1.  What  is  the  etymology  and  meaning  of  the  word  Trinrty, 
and  when  was  it  introduced  into  the  language  of  the  Church  ? 

The  word  trinity  (Trinitas)  is  derived  either  from  tres-unus, 
trinus,  or  from  rpxAz,  three  in  one,  or  the  one  which  is  three, 
and  the  three  which  are  one ;  not  triplex — trinitas  not  triplicitas. 
This  word  is  not  found  in  the  Scriptures.  Technical  terms  are 
however  an  absolute  necessity  in  all  sciences.  In  this  case 
they  have  been  made  particularly  essential  because  of  the  sub- 
tle perversions  of  the  simple,  untechnical  Biblical  statements 
by  infidels  and  heretics.  This  term,  as  above  defined,  admir- 
ably expresses  the  central  fact  of  the  great  doctrine  of  the  one 
essence  eternally  subsisting  as  three  Persons,  all  the  elements 
of  which  are  explicitly  taught  in  the  Scriptures.  The  Greek 
word  rpias  was  first  used  in  this  connection  by  Theophilus, 
bishop  of  Antioch,  in  Syria,  from  a.  d.  168  to  a.  d.  183.  The 
Latin  term  Trinitas  was  first  used  by  Tertullian,  circum.  220. 
Mosheim's  "  Eccle.  Hist,"  vol.  I.,  p.  121,  note  7 ;  Hagenbach, 
«  Hist,  of  Doc,"  vol.  I.,  129. 

2.  What  is  the  theological  meaning  of  the  term  substantia  (sub- 
stance), and  ivhat  change  has  occurred  in  its  usage  ? 

Substantia,  as  now  used,  is  equivalent  to  essence,  independ 
ent  being.  Thus,  in  the  Godhead,  the  three  persons  are  the 
same  in  substance,  i.  e.,  of  one  and  the  same  indivisible,  nu« 
merical  essence. 

The  word  was  at  first  used  by  one  party  in  the  church  as 
equivalent  to  subsistentia  (subsistence),  or  mode  of  existence. 
In  which  sense,  while  there  is  but  one  essence,  there  are  three 
substantias  or  persons,  in  the  Godhead. — See  Turretin,  Tom.  I., 
locus  hi.,  ques.  23. 

3.  What  other  terms  have  been  used  as  the  equivalents  of  sub- 
stantia in  tlie  definitions  of  this  doctrine? 

The  Greek  6v6ia  and  <pv6i$.  The  Latin  essentia,  natura.  The 
English  essence,  substance,  nature,  being. 


DEFINITION   OF    TERMS.  165 

4.  What  is  the  theological  meaning  of  the  word  subsisleniia 
{subsistence)  ? 

It  is  used  to  signify  that  mode  of  existence  which  distin- 
guishes one  individual  thing  from  every  other  individual  thing, 
one  person  from  every  other  person.  As  applied  to  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity,  subsistence  is  that  mode  of  existence  which 
18  peculiar  to  each  of  the  divine  persons,  and  which  in  each 
constitutes  the  one  essence  a  distinct  person. 

5.  What  is  tJie  New  Testament  sense  of  the  ivord  vit66ra6ii 
{hypostasis)  ? 

This  word,  as  to  its  etymology,  is  precisely  equivalent  to 
substance;  it  comes  from  vcpi6trjini  "to  stand  under." 

In  the  New  Testament  it  is  used  five  times — 

1st.  Figuratively,  for  confidence,  or  that  state  of  mind  which 
is  conscious  of  a  firm  foundation,  2  Cor.  ix.  4;  xi.  17 ;  Heb.  iii.  14, 
which  faith  realizes,  Heb.  xi.  1. 

2d.  Literally,  for  essential  nature,  Heb.  i.  3. — See  Sampson's 
"  Com.  on  Heb." 

6.  In  what  sense  is  this  word  used  by  the  ecclesiastical  luriters  ? 

Until  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century  this  word,  in  con- 
nection with  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  was  generally  used 
in  its  primary  sense,  as  equivalent  to  substance.  It  is  used 
in  this  sense  in  the  creed  published  by  the  Council  of  Nice 
a.  d.  325,  and  again  in  the  decrees  of  the  Council  of  Sardica,  in 
Illyria,  a.  d.  347.  These  agreed  in  affirming  that  there  is  but 
one  hypostasis  in  the  Godhead.  Some,  however,  at  that  time 
understanding  the  word  in  the  sense  of  person,  its  usage  was 
changed  by  general  consent,  chiefly  through  the  influence  of 
Athanasius,  and  ever  since  it  has  been  established  in  theolog- 
ical language  in  the  sense  of  person,  in  contradistinction  to 
6v6ia,  essence.  It  has  been  transferred  into  the  English  lan- 
guage in  the  form  of  an  adjective,  to  designate  the  hypostatical 
or  personal  union  of  two  natures  in  the  God-man. 

7.  What  is  essential  to  personality,  and  how  is  the  word  per- 
son to  be  defined  in  connection  with  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ? 

The  Latin  word,  " suppositum"  signifies  a  distinct  individual 
existence,  e.  g.,  a  partioiilar  tree  or  horse.  A  person  is  "sup- 
positum intellectuale"  a  distinct  individual  existence,  to  which 
belongs  the  properties  of  reason  and  free  will.  Throughout 
the  entire  range  of  our  experience  and  observation  of  personal 
existence  among  creatures,  personality  rests  upon  and  appears 


166  THE   HOLY    TRINITY. 

to  be  inseparable  from  distinction  of  essence.  Every  distinct 
person  is  a  distinct  soul,  with  or  without  a  body. 

That  distinguishing  mode  of  existence  which  constitutes 
the  one  divine  essence  co-ordinately  three  separate  persons,  is 
of  course  an  infinite  mystery  which  we  can  not  understand, 
and  therefore  can  not  adequately  define,  and  which  we  can 
know  only  so  far  as  it  is  explicitly  revealed.  All  that  we  know 
is,  that  this  distinction,  which  is  called  personality,  embraces 
all  those  incommunicable  properties  which  eternally  belong  to 
Father,  Son,  or  Holy  Ghost  separately,  and  not  to  all  in  com- 
mon; that  it  lays  the  foundation  for  their  concurrence  in  coun- 
sel, their  mutual  love  and  action  one  upon  another,  as  the 
Father  sending  the  Son,  and  the  Father  and  Son  sending  the 
Spirit,  and  for  use  of  the  personal  pronouns  I,  thou,  he,  in  the 
revelation  which  one  divine  person  gives  of  himself  and  of 
the  others. 

Person  is  defined  by  Gerhard—"  Persona  est  substantia 
individua,  intelligens,  incommunicabilis,  quae  non  sustentatur 
in  alio,  vel  ab  alio."  In  relation  to  this  great  mystery  of  the 
divine  trinity  of  persons  in  the  unity  of  essence  Calvin's  defi- 
nition of  Person  is  better  because  more  modest.  "  By  person, 
then,  I  mean  a  subsistence  in  the  divine  essence — a  subsistence 
which,  while  related  to  the  other  two,  is  distinguished  from 
them  by  incommunicable  properties." — "Institutes,"  Book  I., 
Chap.  13,  §  6. 

8.  What  oilier  terms  have  been  used  by  tJwohgians  as  the  equiv- 
alent of  Person  in  this  connection  ? 

Greek,  V7t6dradi%  and  itpodconov — aspect;  Latin, persona,  hypo- 
stasis, subsistentia,  aspectus;  English,  person,  hypostasis. — Shecfd't 
"Hist.  Christ  Doc,"  B.  III.,  Ch.  3,  §  5. 

9.  What  is  meant  by  the  terms  6/ioovdiov  (of  the  same  substance)^ 
and  d/xoiovdiov  (of  similar  substance)? 

In  the  first  general  council  of  the  church  which,  consisting 
of  three  hundred  and  eighteen  bishops,  was  called  together  by 
the  Emperor  Constantine  at  Nice,  in  Bithynia,  a.  d.  325,  there 
were  found  to  be  three  great  parties  representing  different 
opinions  concerning  the  Trinity. 

1st.  The  orthodox  party,  who  maintained  the  opinion  now 
held  by  all  Christians,  that  the  Lord  Jesus  is,  as  to  his  divine 
nature,  of  the  same  identical  substance  with  the  Father.  These 
insisted  upon  applying  to  him  the  definite  term  buoovdiov  (ho- 
moousion),  compounded  of  6^6?,  snm<',  and  oSd/a,  substance,  to 
teach  the  great  truth  that  the  three  persons  of  the  Godhead  are 
one  God,  because  they  are  of  the  same  numerical  essence, 


THE    SEVERAL    PROPOSITIONS   INVOLVED.  1G7 

2d.  The  Arians,  who  maintained  that  the  Son  of  God  is  the 
greatest  of  all  creatures,  more  like  God  than  any  other,  the 
,  only-begotten  Son  of  God,  created  before  all  worlds,  through 
whom  God  created  all  other  things,  and  in  that  sense  only  divine. 
They  held  that  the  Son  Avas  ezEponv6iov  of  different  or  generi- 
ically  unlike  essence  from  the  Father. 

3d.  The  middle  party,  styled  Semiarians,  who  confessed 
that  the  Son  was  not  a  creature,  but  denied  that  he  was  in  the 
same  sense  God  as  the  Father  is.  They  held  that  the  Father  is 
the  only  absolute  self-existent  God;  yet  that  from  eternity  he, 
by  his  own  free  will,  caused  to  proceed  from  himself  a  divine 
person  of  like  nature  and  properties.  They  denied,  therefore, 
that  the  Son  was  of  the  same  substance  (homoousion)  with  the 
Father,  but  admitted  that  he  was  of  an  essence  truly  similar, 
and  derived  from  the  Father  (homoiousion,  6/noiovdiov,  from, 
ojuoto?,  like,  and  6v<5ia,  substance),  generically  though  not  nu- 
merically one. 

The  opinions  of  the  first,  or  orthodox  party,  prevailed  at  that 
council,  and  have  ever  since  been  represented  by  the  technical 
phrase,  homoousian. 

For  the  creed  promulgated  by  that  council,  see  Chapter  VII. 

10.  What  are  (lie  several  propositions  essentially  involved  in  (lie, 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ? 

1st.  There  is  but  one  God,  and  this  God  is  one,  i.  e., 
Indivisible. 

2d.  That  the  one  indivisible  divine  essence,  as  a  whole, 
exists  eternally  as  Father,  and  as  Son,  and  as  Holy  Ghost; 
that  each  person  possesses  the  whole  essence,  and  is  consti- 
tuted a  distinct  person  by  certain  incommunicable  properties, 
not  common  to  him  with  the  others. 

3d.  The  distinction  between  these  three  is  a  personal  distinc- 
tion, in  the  sense  that  it  occasions  (1)  the  use  of  the  personal 
f>ronouns,  I,  thou,  he,  (2)  a  concurrence  in  counsel  and  a  mutual 
ove,  (3)  a  distinct  order  of  operation. 

4tn.  Since  there  is  but  one  divine  essence,  and  since  all  attri- 
butes or  active  properties  are  inherent  in  and  inseparable  from 
the  essence  to  which  they  pertain,  it  follows  that  all  the  divine 
attributes  must  be  identically  common  to  each  of  the  three  per- 
sons who  subsist  in  common  of  the  one  essence.  Among  all 
creatures  every  distinct  person  is  a  distinct  numerical  sub- 
stance, and  possesses  a  distinct  intelligence,  a  distinct  will, 
etc.  In  the  Godhead,  however,  there  is  but  one  substance,  and 
one  intelligence,  one  will,  etc.,  and  yet  three  persons  eternally 
co-exist  of  that  one  essence,  and  exercise  that  one  intelligence 
and  one  will,  etc.     In  Christ  on  the  contrary,  there  are  two 


1G8  THE    HOLY    TRINITY. 

spirits,  two  intelligences,  two  wills,  and  yet  all  the  while  one 
indivisible  person. 

5th.  These  divine  persons  being  one  God,  all  the  divine 
attributes  being  common  to  each  in  the  same  sense,  never- 
theless they  are  revealed  in  the  Scriptures  in  a  certain  order 
of  subsistence  and  of  operation.  (1.)  Of  subsistence  insomuch 
as  the  Father  is  neither  begotten  nor  proceedeth,  while  the  Son 
is  eternally  begotten  by  the  Father,  and  the  Spirit  eternally 
proceedeth  from  the  Father  and  the  Son;  (2.)  of  operation,  in- 
somuch that  the  first  person  sends  and  operates  through  the 
second,  and  the  first  and  second  send  and  operate  through  the 
third. 

Hence  the  Father  is  always  set  forth  as  first,  the  Son  as 
second,  the  Spirit  as  third. 

6th.  While  all  the  divine  attributes  are  common  equally  to 
the  three  persons,  and  all  divine  works  wrought  ad  extra,  such 
as  creation,  providence,  or  redemption,  are  predicated  alike  of 
the  one  divine  being — the  one  God  considered  absolutely — and 
of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  sever- 
ally; nevertheless  the  Scriptures  attribute  some  divine  works 
wrought  ad  intra,  exclusively  to  each  divine  person  respect- 
ively, e.  g.,  generation  to  the  Father,  filiation  to  the  Son,  pro- 
cession to  the  Holy  Ghost;  and  there  are  likewise  some  divine 
works  wrought  ad  extra  which  are  attributed  pre-eminently  to 
each  person  respectively,  e.  g.,  creation  to  the  Father,  redemp- 
tion to  the  Son,  and  sanctifi cation  to  the  Holy  Ghost. 

In  order,  therefore,  to  establish  this  doctrine  in  all  its  parts 
by  the  testimony  of  Scripture,  it  will  be  necessary  for  us  to 
prove  the  following  propositions  in  their  order: 

1st.  That  God  is  one. 

2d.  That  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  as  to  his  divine  nature,  was 
truly  God,  yet  a  distinct  person  from  the  Father. 

3d.  That  the  Holy  Spirit  is  truly  God,  yet  a  distinct  person. 

4th.  That  the  Scriptures  directly  teach  a  trinity  of  persons 
in  one  Godhead. 

5th.  It  will  remain  to  gather  what  the  Scriptures  reveal  as 
to  the  eternal  and  necessary  relations  which  these  three  divine 
persons  sustain  to  each  other.  These  are  distributed  under  the 
following  heads:  (1)  The  relation  which  the  second  person  sus- 
tains to  the  first,  or  the  eternal  generation  of  the  Son ;  (2)  the 
relation  which  the  third  person  sustains  to  the  first  and  second, 
or  the  eternal  procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and,  (3)  their  per- 
gonal properties  and  order  of  operation,  ad  extra. 

I.  God  is  one,  and  there  is  but  one  God. 
The  proof  of  this  proposition,  from  reason  and  Scripture^ 


THE    DIVINITY   OF   CHRIST.  169 

has  been  fully  set  forth  above,  in  Chap.  VIII.,  on  the  Attributes 
of  God,  questions  12-18. 

The  answer  to  the  question,  How  the  co-ordinate  existence 
of  three  distinct  persons  in  the  Trinity  can  be  reconciled  with 
this  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  divine  unity,  is  given  below 
in  question  94  of  this  chapter. 

II.  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  as  to  his  divine  nature,  is  truly  God,  and 

YET  A  DISTINCT  PERSON  FROM  THE  FATHER. 

11.  What  different  views  have  been  entertained  with  respect  to 
the  person  of  Christ  ? 

The  orthodox  doctrine  as  to  the  person  of  Christ,  is  that  he 
from  eternity  has  existed  as  the  co-equal  Son  of  the  Father,  con- 
stituted of  the  same  infinite  self-existent  essence  with  the  Father 
and  the  Holy  Ghost. 

The  orthodox  doctrine  as  to  his  person  as  at  present  consti- 
tuted, since  his  incarnation,  is  set  forth  in  chap.  XXIII.  An 
account  of  the  different  heretical  opinions  as  to  his  person  are 
given  below,  in  questions  96-99,  of  this  chapter. 

12.  How  far  did  the  Jews  at  the  time  of  Christ  expect  the  Mes- 
siah to  appear  as  a  divine  person  ? 

When  Christ  appeared,  it  is  certain  that  the  great  mass  of 
the  Jewish  people  had  ceased  to  entertain  the  Scriptural  ex- 
pectation of  a  divine  Saviour,  and  only  desired  a  temporal 
prince,  in  a  pre-eminent  sense,  a  favorite  of  heaven.  It  is 
said,  however,  that  scattered  hints  in  some  of  the  rabbinical 
writings  indicate  that  some  of  the  more  learned  and  spiritual 
still  continued  true  to  the  ancient  faith. 

13.  How  may  the  pre-existence  of  Jesus  before  his  birth  by  the 
Virgin  be  proved  from  Scripture  ? 

1st.  Those  passages  which  say  that  he  is  the  creator  of  the 
world.— John  i.  3;  Col.  i.  15-18. 

2d.  Those  passages  which  directly  declare  that  he  was  with 
the  Father  before  the  world  was;  that  he  was  rich,  and  pos- 
sessed glory. — John  i.  1,  15,  30;  vi.  62;  viii.  58;  xvii.  5;  2  Cor. 
viii.  9. 

3d.  Those  passages  Avhich  declare  that  he  "  came  into  the 
world,"  "came  down  from  heaven." — John  iii.  13,  31;  xiii.  3; 
xvi.  28;  1  Cor.  xv.  47. 

14.  How  can  it  be  proved  that  the  Jehovah  who  manifested  him- 
self as  the  God  of  the  Jews  under  the  old  economy  was  the  second 
'person  of  the  Trinity,  ivho  became  incarnate  in  Jesus  of  Nazareth  ? 

As  this  fact  is  not  affirmed  in  any  single  statement  of 


170  THE    HOLY    TRINITY. 

Scripture,  it  can  be  established  only  by  a  careful  comparison 
of  many  passages.  The  evidence,  as  compiled  from  Hill's 
Lects.,  Book  III.,  ch.  v.,  may  be  summed  up  as  follows: 

1st.  All  the  divine  appearances  of  the  ancient  economy  are 
referred  to  one  person. — Compare  Gen.  xviii.  2,  17 ;  xxviii.  13 ; 
xxxii.  9,  31;  Ex.  hi.  14,  15;  xiii.  21;  xx.  1,  2;  xxv.  21;  Deut. 
iv.  33,  36,  39;  Neh.  ix.  7-28.  This  one  person  is  called  Jeho- 
vah, the  incommunicable  name  of  God,  and  at  the  same  time 
angel,  or  one  sent. — Compare  Gen.  xxxi.  11,  13;  xlviii.  15,  16; 
Hosea  xii.  2,  5.  Compare  Ex.  iii.  14,  15,  with  Acts  vii.  30-35 ; 
and  Ex  xiii.  21,  with  Ex  xiv.  19;  and  Ex.  xx  1,  2,  with  Acta 
vii.  38;  Isa.  lxiii.  7,  9. 

2d.  But  God  the  Father  has  been  seen  by  no  man  (John 
i.  18 ;  vi.  46) :  neither  could  he  be  an  angel,  or  one  sent  by  any 
other;  yet  God  the  Son  has  been  seen  (1  John  i.  1,  2),  and  sent 
(John  v.  36). 

3d.  This  Jehovah,  who  was  at  the  same  time  the  angel,  or 
one  sent,  of  the  old  economy,  was  also  set  forth  by  the  proph- 
ets as  the  Saviour  of  Israel,  and  the  author  of  the  new  dis- 
pensation. In  Zech.  ii.  10,  11,  one  Jehovah  is  represented  as 
sending  another.  See  Micah  v.  2.  In  Mai.  iii.  1,  it  is  declared 
that  "  the  Lord,"  "  the  messenger  of  the  covenant,"  shall  come 
to  his  own  temple.  This  applied  to  Jesus  (Mark  i.  2). — Com- 
pare Ps.  xcvii.  7,  with  Heb.  i.  6;  and  Isa.  vi.  1-5,  with  John 
xii.  41. 

4th.  Certain  references  in  the  New  Testament  to  passages 
in  the  Old  appear  directly  to  imply  this  fact.  Compare  Ps. 
lxxviii.  15,  16,  35,  with  1  Cor.  x.  9. 

5th.  The  Church  is  one  under  all  dispensations,  and  Jesus 
from  the  beginning  is  the  Eedeemer  and  Head  of  the  Church ; 
it  is,  therefore,  most  consistent  with  all  that  has  been  revealed 
to  us  as  to  the  offices  of  the  three  divine  persons  in  the  scheme 
of  redemption,  to  admit  the  view  here  presented.  See  also  John 
viii.  56,  58;  Matt,  xxiii.  37;  1  Pet.  i.  10,  11. 

15.  In  ivhat  form  are  the  earliest  disclosures  made  in  the  Old 
Testament  of  the  existence  and  agency  of  a  Person  distinct  from 
God  and  yet  as  divine? 

In  the  earlier  books  an  Angel  is  spoken  of,  sent  from  God, 
often  appearing  to  men,  and  yet  himself  God. — Gen.  xvi.  7-13. 
The  Angel  of  Jehovah  appears  to  Hagar,  claims  divine  power, 
and  is  called  God. — Gen.  xviii.  2-33.  Three  angels  appeared 
to  Abraham,  one  of  whom  is  called  Jehovah,  v.  17. — Gen. 
xxxii.  25.  An  Angel  wrestles  with  Jacob  and  blesses  him  aa 
God,  and  in  Hosea,  xii.  3-5,  that  Angel  is  called  God. — Ex 
iii.  2.     The  Angel  of  Jehovah  appeared  to  Moses  in  the  burn- 


THE   DIVINITY   OF  CHRIST.  171 

ing  bush,  and  in  the  following  verses  this  angel  is  called  Jeho- 
vah, and  other  divine  titles  are  ascribed  to  him.  This  Angel 
led  the  Israelites  in  the  wilderness. — Ch.  xiv.  19 ;  Isa.  lxiii.  9. 
Jehovah  is  represented  as  saving  his  people  by  the  Angel  of  his 
Presence.  Thus  Malachi  iii.  1 — "The  Lord,  the  Angel  of  the 
covenant  shall  suddenly  come  to  his  temple."  This  applied  tc 
Christ.— Mark  i.  2. 

16.  What  evidence  of  the  divinity  of  the  Messiah  does  the  2d 
Psalm  present  ? 

It  declares  him  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  and  as  such  to  receive 
universal  power  over  the  whole  earth  and  its  inhabitants.  All 
are  exhorted  to  submit  to  him,  and  to  trust  him,  on  pain  of  his 
anger.  In  Acts  xiii.  33,  Paul  declares  that  Psalm  refers  to 
Christ. 

17.  What  evidence  is  furnished  by  the  45th  Psalm  ? 

The  ancient  Jews  considered  this  Psalm  addressed  to  the 
Messiah,  and  the  fact  is  established  by  Paul  (Heb.  i.  8,  9). 
Here,  therefore,  Jesus  is  called  God,  and  his  throne  eternal. 

18.  What  evidence  is  furnished  by  Psalm  110  ? 

That  this  Psalm  refers  to  the  Messiah  is  proved  by  Christ 
(Matt.  xxii.  43,  44),  and  by  Paul  (Heb.  v.  6;  vii.  17).  He  ia 
here  called  David's  Lord  (Adonai),  and  invited  to  sit  at  the  right 
hand  of  Jehovah  until  all  his  enemies  be  made  his  footstool. 

19.  Wliat  evidence  is  furnished  by  Isaiah  ix.  6  ? 

This  passage  self-evidently  refers  to  the  Messiah,  as  is  con- 
firmed by  Matt.  iv.  14-16.  It  declares  explicitly  that  the  child 
born  "is  also  the  mighty  God,  the  everlasting  Father,  the  Prince 
of  Peace." 

20.  WItat  is  the  evidence  furnished  by  3ficah  v.  2  ? 

This  was  understood  by  the  Jews  to  refer  to  Christ,  which 
is  confirmed  by  Matt.  ii.  6,  and  John  vii.  42.  The  passage 
declares  that  his  goings  forth  have  been  "  from  ever  of  old," 
t.  e.,  from  eternity. 

21.  WJtat  evidence  is  furnished  by  Malachi  iii.  1,  2  ? 

This  passage  self-evidently  refers  to  the  Messiah,  as  is  con- 
firmed by  Mark  i.  2. 

The  Hebrew  term  (Adonai),  here  translated  Lord,  is  never 
applied  to  any  other  than  the  supreme  God.  The  temple,  which 
was  sacred  to  the  presence  and  worship  of  Jehovah,  is  called 


172  THE    HOLY    TRINITY. 

his  temple.     And  in  verse  2d,  a  divine  work  of  judgment  is 
ascribed  to  him. 

22.  Wliat  evidence  is  afforded  by  the  way  in  which  tJie  writers 
of  the  New  Testament  apply  tlue  writings  of  the  Old  Testament  to 
Christ  ? 

The  apostles  frequently  apply  the  language  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament to  Christ,  when  it  is  evident  that  the  original  writers 
intended  to  speak  of  Jehovah,  and  not  of  the  Messiah  as  such. 

Psalm  102  is  evidently  an  address  to  the  supreme  Lord, 
ascribing  to  him  eternity,  creation,  providential  government, 
worship,  and  the  hearing  and  answering  of  prayer.  But  Paul 
(Heb.  i.  10-12)  affirms  Christ  to  be  the  subject  of  the  address. 
In  Isa.  xlv.  20-25,  Jehovah  speaks  and  asserts  his  own  supreme 
Lordship.  But  Paul,  in  Kom.  xiv.  11,  quotes  a  part  of  Jeho- 
vah's declaration  with  regard  to  himself,  to  prove  that  we  must 
all  stand  before  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ. — Compare  also 
Isa.  vi.  3,  with  John  xii.  41. 

23.  Wliat  is  the  general  character  of  the  evidence  upon  this 
subject  afforded  by  the  Neiv  Testament  ? 

This  fundamental  doctrine  is  presented  to  us  in  every  indi- 
vidual writing,  and  in  every  separate  paragraph  of  the  New 
Testament,  either  by  direct  assertion  or  by  necessary  implica- 
tion, as  may  be  ascertained  by  every  honest  reader  for  himself 
The  mass  of  this  testimony  is  so  great,  and  is  so  intimately  in- 
terwoven with  every  other  theme  in  every  passage,  that  I  have 
room  here  to  present  only  a  general  sample  of  the  evidence, 
classified  under  the  usual  heads. 

24.  Prove  that  the  Neio  Testament  asci'ibcs  divine  titles  to 
Christ. 

John  i.  1;  xx.  28;  Acts  xx.  28;  Rom.  ix.  5;  2  Thess.  i.  12; 
1  Tim.  iii.  16;  Titus  ii.  13;  Heb.  i.  8;  1  John  v.  20. 

25.  Prove  that  tlue  New  Testament  ascribes  divine  perfections 
to  Christ. 

Eternity.— .John  i.  2;  viii.  58;  xvii.  5;  Rev.  i.  8,  17,  18; 
xxii.  13. 

Immutability. — Heb.  i.  11,  12,  and  xiii.  8. 

Omnipresence. — John  iii.  13;  Matt  xviii.  20;  xxviii.  20. 

Omniscience. — Matt.  xi.  27;  John  ii.  23-25;  xxi.  17;  Rev 
ii.  23. 

Omnipotence. — John  v.  17;  Heb.  i.  3;  Rev.  i.  8;  xi.  17. 


DIVINITY  AND  PERSONALITY  OF  THE  HOLY  GHOST.    17U 

26.  Prove  that  the  New  Testament  ascribes  divine  works  to 
Christ. 

Creation.— John  i.  3,  10;  Col.  i.  16,  17. 

Preservation  and  Providence. — Heb.  i.  3;  Col.  i.  17;  Matt, 
xxviii.  18. 

Miracles. — John  v.  21,  36. 

Judgment.— 2  Cor.  v.  10;  Matt.  xxv.  31,  32;  John  v.  22. 

A  work  of  grace,  including  election. — John  xiii.  18. 

Sanctification,  Eph.  v.  26;  sending  the  Holy  Ghost,  John 
xvi.  7,  14;  giving  eternal  life,  John  x.  28;  Turretin,  Tom.  I., 
L.  3,  Q.  28. 

27.  Prove  that  the  New  Testament  teaches  that  supreme  wor- 
ship should  be  paid  to  Christ. 

Matt,  xxviii.  19;  John  v.  22,  23;  xiv.  1;  Acts  vii.  59,  60; 
1  Cor.  i.  2;  2  Cor.  xiii.  14;  Phil.  ii.  9,  10;  Heb.  i.  6;  Rev.  i.  5,  6; 
v.  11,  12;  vii.  10. 

28.  Prove  that  tJw  Son,  although  God,  is  a  distinct  person  from 
the  Father. 

This  fact  is  so  plainly  taught  in  Scripture,  and  so  univer- 
sally implied,  that  the  Sabellian  system,  which  denies  it,  has 
never  obtained  any  general  currency. 

Christ  is  sent  by  the  Father,  comes  from  him,  returns  to 
him,  receives  his  commandment,  does  his  will,  loves  him,  is 
loved  by  him,  addresses  prayer  to  him,  uses  the  pronouns  thou 
and  he  when  speaking  to  and  of  him.  This  is  necessarily  im- 
plied, also,  in  the  relative  titles,  Father  and  Son.  See  the 
whole  New  Testament. 

In  establishing  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  as  far  as  the 
Second  Person  is  involved,  the  stress  lies  altogether  in  prov- 
ing the  absolute  Divinity  of  Christ,  his  distinct  personality 
being  so  obvious  as  to  be  practically  beyond  dispute.  While 
in  vindicating  the  truth  of  the  doctrine  as  it  respects  the  Third 
Person  the  whole  stress  lies  in  proving  His  distinct  person- 
ality, his  absolute  divinity  being  so  clearly  revealed  as  to  be 
unquestionable. 

III.  The  Holy  Ghost  is  truly  God,  yet  a  distinct  terson. 

29.  What  sects  have  held  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  a  creature  ? 

The  divinity  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  so  clearly  revealed  in 
Scripture  that  very  few  have  dared  to  call  it  in  question.  The 
early  controversies  of  the  orthodox  with  the  Arians  precedent 
and  consequent  to  the  Council  of  Nice,  a.  d.  325,  to  such  a 
degree  absorbed  the  mind  of  both  parties  with  the  question  of 


174  THE    HOLY    TRINITY. 

the  divinity  of  the  Son,  that  very  little  prominence  was  given  in 
that  age  to  questions  concerning  the  Holy  Ghost.  Arius,  how- 
ever, is  said  to  have  taught  that  as  the  Son  is  the  first  and 
greatest  creature  of  the  Father,  so  the  Holy  Ghost  is  the  first 
and  greatest  creature  of  the  Son ;  a  xrid/ia  uritj/iaros,  a  creature 
of  a  creature.— See  Neander's  "Ch.  Hist,"  Vol.  I.,  pp.  416-420. 
Some  of  the  disciples  of  Macedonius,  bishop  of  Constanti- 
nople, a.  d.  341-360,  are  said  to  have  held  that  the  Holy  Ghost 
was  not  Supreme  God.  These  were  condemned  by  the  second 
General  Council,  which  met  at  Constantinople,  a.  d.  381.  This 
council  defined  and  guarded  the  orthodox  faith,  by  adding  de- 
finite clauses  to  the  simple  reference  which  the  ancient  creed 
had  made  to  the  Holy  Ghost. — See  the  Creed  of  the  Council  of 
Constantinople,  Chapter  7. 

30.  By  whom  has  tJie  Holy  Spirit  been  regarded  merely  as  an 
energy  of  God? 

Those  early  heretical  sects,  generally  styled  Monarchians 
and  Patripassians,  all  with  subordinate  distinctions  taught  that 
there  was  but  one  person  as  well  as  one  essence  in  the  Godhead, 
who,  in  different  relations,  is  called  Father,  Son,  or  Holy  Ghost. 
In  the  sixteenth  century  Socinus,  who  taught  that  Jesus  Christ 
was  a  mere  man,  maintained  that  the  term  Holy  Ghost  js  in 
Scripture  used  as  a  designation  of  God's  energy,  when  exer- 
cised in  a  particular  way.  This  is  now  the  opinion  of  all  mod- 
ern Unitarians  and  Rationalists. 

31.  Hoiv  can  it  be  proved  that  aU  tJie  attributes  of  personality 
are  ascribed  to  tJie  Holy  GJwst  in  the  Scriptures  ? 

The  attributes  of  personality  are  such  as  intelligence,  voli- 
tion, separate  agency.  Christ  uses  the  pronouns,  I,  thou,  he, 
when  speaking  of  the  relation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  himself 
and  the  Father:  "I  will  send  him."  "He  will  testify  of  me." 
"Whom  the  Father  will  send  in  my  name."  Thus  he  is  sent; 
he  tejstifies;  he  takes  of  the  things  of  Christ,  and  shows  them 
to  us.  He  teaches  and  leads  to  all  truth.  He  knows,  because 
he  searches  the  deep  things  of  God.  He  works  all  supernat- 
ural gifts,  dividing  to  every  man  as  he  wills. — John  xiv.  17,  26; 
xv.  26;  1  Cor.  ii.  10,  11;  xii.  11.  He  reproves,  glorifies,  helps, 
intercedes. — John  xvi.  7-13;  Rom.  viii.  26. 

32.  How  may  his  personality  be  argued  from  the  offices  which 
he  is  said  in  the  Scriptures  to  execute  ? 

The  New  Testament  throughout  all  its  teachings  discovers 
the  plan  of  redemption  as  essentially  involving  the  agency  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  in  applying  the  salvation  which  it  was  the 


THE   HOLY  SPIRIT.  175 

work  of  the  Son  to  accomplish.  He  inspired  the  prophets  and 
apostles ;  he  teaches  and  sanctifies  the  church ;  he  selects  her  of- 
ficers, qualifying  them  by  the  communication  of  special  gifts  at 
his  will.  He  is  the  advocate,  every  Christian  is  his  client.  He 
brings  all  the  grace  of  the  absent  Christ  to  us,  and  gives  it  effect 
in  our  persons  in  every  moment  of  our  lives.  His  personal  dis- 
tinction is  obviously  involved  in  the  very  nature  of  these  func- 
tions which  he  discharges. — Luke  xii.  12;  Acts  v.  32;  xv.  28; 
xvi.  6;  xxviii.  25;  Rom.  xv.  16;  1  Cor.  ii.  13;  Heb.  ii.  4;  iii  7; 
2  Pet.  i.  21. 

33.  What  argument  for  the  personality  of  the  Holy  Ghost  may 
be  deduced  from  the  formula  of  baptism  ? 

Christians  are  baptized  "in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Ghost."  It  would  be  inconsistent  with  every  law  of 
language  and  reason  to  speak  of  the  "name"  of  an  energy,  or 
to  associate  an  energy  co-ordinately  with  two  distinct  persons. 

34.  Hoiv  may  his  personality  be  proved  by  what  is  said  of  the 
sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost  ? 

In  Matt.  xii.  31,  32 ;  Mark  iii.  28,  29 ;  Luke  xii.  10,  this  sin 
is  called  "  blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Ghost."  Now,  blas- 
phemy is  a  sin  committed  against  a  person,  and  it  is  here  dis- 
tinguished from  the  same  act  as  committed  against  the  other 
persons  of  the  Trinity. 

35.  How  can  such  expressions  as  "giving"  and  "pouring  out 
the  Spirit"  be  reconciled  with  his  personality  ? 

These  and  other  similar  expressions  are  used  figuratively  to 
set  forth  our  participation  in  the  gifts  and  influences  of  the 
Spirit.  It  is  one  of  the  most  natural  and  common  of  all  figures 
to  designate  the  gift  by  the  name  of  the  giver.  Thus  we  are 
said  "  to  put  on  Christ,"  "  to  be  baptized  into  Christ,"  etc.— 
Eph.  v.  30;  Rom.  xiii.  14;  Gal.  iii.  27. 

36.  Show  that  the  names  of  God  are  applied  to  the  Spirit. 

Compare  Ex  xvii.  7,  and  Ps.  xcv.  7,  with  Heb.  iii.  7-11. — 
See  Acts  v.  3,  4. 

37.  Wliat  divine  attributes  do  the  Scriptures  ascribe  to  him  ? 

Omnipresence. — Ps.  cxxxix.  7;  1  Cor.  xii.  13. 
Omniscience. — 1  Cor.  ii.  10,  11. 
Omnipotence. — Luke  i.  35;  Rom.  viii.  11. 

38.  Wliat  agency  in  the  external  world  do  the  Scriptures  ascribe 
to  him  ? 


17G  THE    HOLY    TRINITY. 

Creation. — Gen.  i.  2;  Job  xxvi.  13;  Ps.  civ.  30. 
The  power  of  working  miracles. — Matt.  xii.  28;  1  Cor.  xii. 
9-11. 

39.  How  is  his  supreme  divinity  established  by  wliat  tlie  Sa'ipt- 
ures  teach  of  his  agency  in  redemption  ? 

He  is  declared  to  be  the  immediate  agent  in  regeneration, 
John  iii.  6 ;  Titus  iii.  5 ;  and  in  the  resurrection  of  our  bodies, 
Rom.  viii.  11.  His  agency  in  the  generation  of  Christ's  human 
nature,  in  his  resurrection,  and  in  the  inspiration  of  the  Script- 
ures, were  exertions  of  his  divine  power  in  preparing  the  re- 
demption which  he  now  applies. 

40.  How  can  such  expressions  as,  "he  shall  not  speak  of  himself" 
be  reconciled  with  his  divinity  ? 

This  and  other  similar  expressions  are  to  be  understood  as 
referring  to  the  official  work  of  the  Spirit;  just  as  the  Son  is 
said  in  his  official  character  to  be  sent  by  and  to  be  subordinate 
to  the  Father.  The  object  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  his  official 
work  in  the  hearts  of  men,  is  not  to  reveal  the  relations  of  his 
own  person  to  the  other  persons  of  the  Godhead,  but  simply  to 
reveal  the  mediatorial  character  and  work  of  Christ. 


IV.  The  Scriptures  directly  teach  a  Trinity  of  Persons  in 
One  Godhead. 

41.  How  is  this  trinity  of  persons  directly  taught  in  the  formula 
of  baptism  ? 

Baptism  in  the  name  of  God  implies  the  recognition  of  God's 
divine  authority,  his  covenant  engagement  to  give  us  eternal 
life,  and  our  engagement  to  render  him  divine  worship  and 
obedience.  Christians  are  baptized  thus  into  covenant  relation 
with  three  persons  distinctly  named  in  order.  The  language 
necessarily  implies  that  each  name  represents  a  person.  The 
nature  of  the  sacrament  proves  that  each  person  must  be 
divine. — See  Matt,  xxviii.  19. 

42.  How  is  this  doctrine  directly  taught  in  the  formula  of  the' 
apostolical  benediction  ? 

See  2  Cor.  xiii.  14.  We  have  here  distinctly  named  three 
persons,  and  each  communicating  a  separate  blessing,  accord- 
ing to  his  own  order  and  manner  of  operation.  The  benevo- 
lence of  the  Father  in  designing,  the  grace  of  the  Son  in  the 
acquisition,  the  communion  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  applica- 
tion of  salvation.     These  are  three  distinct  personal  names, 


DIRECT   STATEMENTS    OF    THE    DOCTRINE.  177 

three  distinct  modes  of  personal   agency,  and   each  equally 
divine. 

43.  What  evidence  is  afforded  by  the  narrative  of  Christ's 
baptism  ? 

See  Matt.  iii.  13-17.  Here  also  we  have  presented  to  us 
three  persons  distinctly  named  and  described  as  severally  act- 
ing, each  after  his  own  order.  The  Father  speaking  from 
heaven,  the  Spirit  descending  like  a  dove  and  lighting  upon 
Christ,  Christ  acknowledged  as  the  beloved  Son  of  God  ascend 
ing  from  the  water. 

44.  State  the  argument  from  John  xv.  26,  and  tJie  context. 

In  this  passage  again  we  have  three  persons  severally 
named  at  the  same  time,  and  their  relative  action  affirmed. 
The  Son  is  the  person  speaking  of  the  Father  and  the  Spirit, 
and  claiming  for  himself  the  right  of  sending  the  Spirit.  The 
Father  is  the  person  from  whom  the  Spirit  proceeds.  Of  the 
Spirit  the  Son  says  that  "he  will  come,"  "he  will  be  sent,"  "he 
proceedeth,"  "  he  will  testify." 

45.  What  is  the  state  of  the  evidence  ivith  regard  to  the  gen- 
uineness of  1  John  v.  7  ? 

I  have  not  room  in  which  to  present  a  synopsis  of  the  argu- 
ment for  and  against  the  genuineness  of  the  disputed  clause 
which  could  be  of  any  value. — See  "  Home's  Intro.,"  Vol  IV., 
Part  II.,  chapter  iv.,  section  5. 

It  will  suffice  to  say — 

1st.  The  disputed  clause  is  as  follows,  including  part  of  the 
eighth  verse:  "in  heaven,  the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost;  and  these  three  are  one.  And  there  are  three  that  bear 
witness  in  earth." 

2d.  Learned  and  pious  men  are  divided  in  their  opinions  as 
to  the  preponderance  of  the  evidence;  the  weight  of  opinion 
inclining  against  the  genuineness  of  the  clause. 

3d.  The  doctrine  taught  is  so  scriptural,  and  the  grammat- 
ical and  logical  connection  of  the  clause  with  the  rest  of  the 
passage  is  so  intimate,  that  for  the  purpose  of  edification,  in  the 
present  state  of  our  knowledge,  the  clause  ought  to  be  retained, 
although  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  doctrine,  it  ought  not  to 
be  relied  upon. 

4th.  The  rejection  of  this  passage  does  in  no  degree  lessen 
the  irresistible  weight  of  evidence  of  the  truth  of  the  orthodox 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  which  the  Scriptures  afford. 


178  THE    HOLY    TRINITY. 

46.  What  passages  in  the  Old  Testament  imply  the  existence 
of  more  than  one  person  in  the  Godhead? 

Mark  the  use  of  the  plural  in  the  following  passages. — Gen. 
i.  26;  iii.  22;  xi.  7;  Isa.  vi.  8;  Compare  the  three-fold  repeti- 
tion of  the  name  Jehovah  (Num.  vi.  24-26)  with  the  apostol- 
ical benediction — 2  Cor.  xiii.  14.  Mark  also  in  Isa.  vi  3,  the 
threefold  repetition  of  the  ascription  of  holiness. 

47.  What  passages  in  the  Old  Testament  speak  of  the  Son  as 
a  distinct  person  from  the  FatJier,  and  yet  as  divine? 

In  Ps.  xlv.  6,  7,  we  have  the  Father  addressing  the  Son  as 
God,  and  anointing  him. — See  also  Ps.  ex.  1 ;  Isa.  xliv.  6,  7,  14. 

The  prophecies  always  set  forth  the  Messiah  as  a  person 
distinct  from  the  Father,  and  yet  he  is  called  "  Mighty  God," 
etc. — Isa.  ix.  6;  Jer.  xxiii.  6. 

48.  What  passages  of  the  Old  Testament  speak  of  the  Spirit 
as  a  distinct  person  from  the  Father,  and  yet  as  divine  ? 

Gen.  i.  2;  vi.  3;  Ps.  civ.  30;  exxxix.  7;  Job  xxvi.  13;  Isa 
xlviii.  16. 

V.  It  remains  for  us  to  consider  what  the  Scriptures  teach  con- 
cerning the  Eternal  and  Necessary  Relations^which  the 
Three  Divine  Persons  sustain  to  each  other. 

(I.)  The  Relation  which  the  Second  Person  sustadjs  to  the 
First,  or  the  Eternal  Generation  of  the  Son. 

49.  What  is  the  idiomatic  use  of  the  Hebrew  word  I?  (son)  ? 

It  is  used  in  the  sense — 1st.  Of  son.  2d.  Of  descendant; 
hence  in  the  plural  "children  of  Israel,"  for  Israelites.  Also 
when  joined  to  a  name  of  place  or  nation  to  denote  inhabitants 
or  citizens  thereof,  as  "sons  of  Zion,"  etc.  3d.  Of  pupil,  disciple, 
worshipper;  thus  "sons  of  the  prophets"  (1  Kings  xx.  35);  and 
"sons  of  God,"  applied,  (1)  to  kings,  Ps.  ii.  7;  (2)  to  angels, 
Gen.  vi.  2;  (3)  to  worshippers  of  God,  his  own  people,  Deut. 
xiv.  1.  4th.  In  combination  with  substantives,  expressing  age 
or  quality,  etc.;  thus,  "sons  of  years,"  for  aged,  Lev.  xii.  6; 
"son  of  Belial,"  for  worthless  fellow,  Deut.  xiii.  13;  "son  ot 
death,"  for  one  deserving  to  die,  1  Sam.  xx.  31;  "a  hill  son 
of  fatness,"  for  a  fruitful  hill.  The  same  idiom  has  been  car- 
ried into  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament.  —  See  Gesenius' 
"Heb.  Lex." 

50.  In  ivhat  sense  are  men  called  "  sons  of  God  '  in  Scripture  ? 


THE    ETERNAL    SON  SHIP    OF   CHRIST.  173 

The  general  idea  embraced  in  the  relation  of  sonship  in- 
cludes— 1st,  similarity  and  derivation  of  nature;  2d,  parental 
and  filial  love ;  and  3d,  heirship. 

In  this  general  sense  all  God's  holy,  intelligent  creatures  are 
called  his  sons.  The  term  is  applied  in  an  eminent  sense  to 
kings  and  magistrates  who  receive  dominion  from  God  (Ps. 
lxxxii.  6),  and  to  Christians  who  are  the  subjects  of  spiritual 
regeneration  and  adoption  (Gal.  iii.  26),  the  special  objects  of 
divine  favor  (Matt.  v.  9),  and  are  like  him  (Matt.  v.  45).  When 
applied  to  creatures,  whether  men  or  angels  (Job  i.  6),  this 
word  is  always  used  in  the  plural.  In  the  singular  it  is  applied 
only  to  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity,  with  the  single  ex- 
ception of  its  application  once  to  Adam  (Luke  iii.  38),  when 
the  reason  is  obviously  to  mark  the  peculiarity  of  his  derivation 
from  God  immediately  without  the  intervention  of  a  human 
father. 

51.  What  reasons  do  Socinians  assign  for  the  application  of 
the  term  Son  of  God  to  Christ? 

1st.  Some  Socinians  hold  that  he  is  called  Son  of  God  only 
as  an  official  title,  as  it  is  applied  in  the  plural  to  ordinary 
kings  and  magistrates. 

2d.  Other  Socinians  hold  that  he  was  called  Son  of  God 
only  because  he  was  brought  into  being  by  God's  supernatural 
agency,  and  not  by  ordinary  generation.  To  maintain  this 
they  appeal  to  Luke  i.  35. 

52.  Hoio  can  you  answer  the  Socinian  argument  derived  from 
Luke  i.  35;  to  the  effect  that  Christ  teas  called  '■'Son  of  God" 
because  of  his  miraculous  birth  alone  ? 

"We  answer — 1st.  If  that  reason  is  the  fundamental  one 
why  the  phrase  "Son  of  God"  is  generally  applied  to  Christ 
it  should  render  him  the  "  Son  of  the  Spirit,"  who  overshad- 
OAved  the  Virgin,  and  not  the  "  Son  of  the  Father."  But  he  is 
never  once  so  called,  nor  is  any  such  relation  ever  indicated 
in  Scripture. 

2d.  Even  if  this  was  one  reason  for  the  application  of  the 
phrase  it  would  not  follow  that  there  are  not  other  and  deeper 
reasons  for  its  use  revealed  in  Scripture — which  will  be  proved 
below  to  be  the  fact. 

3d.  Probably  the  real  design  of  the  passage  was  simply  to 
convey  to  Mary  the  knowledge  that  in  consequence  of  his 
supernatural  generation  her  son,  that  is  the  man  child  born 
of  her,  is  to  be  called  "the  Son  of  God."  It  was  not  a  common 
child — the  thing  born  of  her  was  to  be  regarded  as  peculiarly 


180  THE    HOLY    TRINITY. 

related  to  God,  until  the  complete  revelation  of  bis  eternal  Son 
ship  as  a  divine  person. 

53.  What  reason  do  Avians  assign  for  the  ascription  of  this  title 
to  Christ? 

Avians  hold  that  he  is  so  called  because  he  was  created  by 
God  more  in  his  own  likeness  than  any  other  creature,  and  first 
in  the  order  of  time. 

54.  What  reason  do  some  Trinitarians,  who  at  this  point  depart 
from  the  orthodox  faith,  give  for  Hue  application  of  this  title  to 
Christ,  and  to  tohat  passages  do  they  appeal  ? 

They  hold  that  the  title  "  Son  of  God  "  applies  to  Christ  not 
as  Logos,  the  eternal  Second  Person  of  the  Trinity,  but  as  The- 
anthropos.  They  object  to  the  orthodox  doctrine  of  the  eternal 
Sonship  of  Christ. 

1st.  That  Sonship  implies  derivation  and  hence  inferiority. 

2d.  That  the  term  "Son"  in  many  passages  is  applied  to 
him  interchangeably  with  the  term  "Christ"  and  other  official 
titles,  belonging  to  his  Mediatorial  office  and  not  to  his  eternal 
relations  within  the  Godhead.  They  refer  to  Matt.  xvi.  16; 
John  i.  49,  etc. 

3d.  That  in  Ps.  ii.  7  it  is  expressly  declared  that  Christ  is 
constituted  "  Son  of  God  "  in  time,  instead  of  his  co-existing  as 
such  from  eternity  with  the  Father  by  necessity  of  nature. 

4th.  The  same  is  argued  from  Rom.  i.  4. 

55.  Shoiv  that  the  orthodox  doctrine  is  not  open  to  the  objection 
that  it  represents  the  Second  Person  as  inferior  to  the  First. 

This  objection  derives  all  its  plausibility  from  unduly  press- 
ing the  analogy  between  the  human  relations  of  Father  and 
Son  and  the  divine  relations  signalized  by  the  same  terms.  The 
one  may  be  so  far  the  best  existing  analogy  of  the  other  known 
to  us,  as  to  lay  the  foundation  for  the  proper  application  of  the 
terms  derived  from  the  known  relation  to  designate  the  un- 
known, while  we  must  remember  that  the  two  things  are 
necessarily  as  different  as  the  material  is  from  the  spiritual, 
as  the  temporal  is  from  the  eternal,  as  the  finite  is  from  the 
infinite.  Besides  it  rests  upon  a  misapprehension  of  the  ortho- 
dox doctrine  as  to  the  following  particulars: 

1st.  The  church  doctrine  is  that  the  Person  not  the  essence  of 
the  Son  is  generated  by  the  Father.  The  self-existent  essence 
of  the  Godhead  belongs  to  the  Son  equally  with  the  Father 
from  eternity. 

2d.  That  the  Father  begets  the  Son  by  an  eternal  and  nec- 
essary constitutional  (not  voluntary)  act.     This  prevents  the 


THE    ETERNAL    SONSHIP    OF   CHRIST.  181 

Son  from  being  in  any  sense  dependent  upon  or  inferior  to 
the  Father,  and  distinguishes  the  church  doctrine  from  Senii- 
arianism,  see  below,  Question  97. 

56.  Slxoio  that  their  objection  to  the  church  doctrine  based  upon 
Matt.  xvi.  16;  John  i.  49,  etc.,  does  not  hold  good. 

In  none  of  these  passages  is  it  affirmed  that  he  is  Son  as  the 
Christ,  i.  c,  as  Mediator,  but  that  being  the  eternal  Son  of  God 
he  is  the  Christ,  the  King  of  Israel,  etc. 

57  Prove  that  neither  the  2d  Psalm  nor  Eom.  i.  4,  teach  that 
Christ  ivas  made  Son  of  God. 

Dr.  Alexander  says  (see  "Com.  on  Psalms")  with  relation  to 
Psalm  ii.  7,  that  it  means  simply,  "Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day 
I  am  thy  Father,  now  always  eternally  thy  Father.  Even  if 
Hhis  day1  be  referred  to  the  inception  of  the  filial  relation,  it  is 
thrown  indefinitely  back  by  the  form  of  reminiscence,  or  narra- 
tion, in  the  first  clause  of  the  verse.  'Jehovah  said  to  me,'  but 
when?  If  understood  to  mean  from  everlasting  the  form  of 
expression  would  be  perfectly  in  keeping  with  the  other  figur- 
ative forms  by  which  the  Scriptures  represent,  things  really 
ineffable  in  human  language." 

Rom.  i.  4 — "And  declared  (o/aztfOeVro?)  to  be  the  Son  of  God 
with  power  according  to  the  spirit  of  holiness,  by  the  resurrec- 
tion from  the  dead."  The  word  6pi6Qevroz  everywhere  else  in 
the  New  Testament  signifies  to  constitute,  to  appoint,  but  here 
it  is  insisted  that  it  signifies  to  manifest.  The  word  strictly 
means  to  bound,  to  define,  and  may  naturally  mean  to  set  forth, 
to  characterize.  This  sense  is  said  (Dr.  Charles  Hodge,  "  Com. 
Rom.")  to  be  adopted  by  the  great  majority  of  commentators, 
including  some  of  the  ancient  Greek  Fathers.  Besides,  even  if 
our  opponents'  interpretation  of  this  passage  were  allowed,  the 
indubitable  evidence  afforded  to  our  position  by  other  passages 
would  remain.  The  two  reasons  for  calling  Christ  Son  are  not 
inconsistent. 

It  is  very  evident  that  Christ  called  himself  Son  of  God,  and 
was  so  recognized  by  his  disciples  before  his  resurrection,  and, 
therefore,  he  might  have  been  revealed  or  manifested  to  be  the 
Son  of  God,  but  could  not  have  been  constituted  such  by  that 
event. 

58.  Show  that  Acts  xiii.  32,  33,  does  not  prove  that  Jesus  luas 
made  Son  of  God. 

It  is  argued  from  this  passage  that  Jesus  was  constituted 
Son  of  GtM.  by  his  resurrection,  as  the  first  stage  of  his  official 
exaltation.     This  can  not  be — 1st.  Because  he  was  sent  into  the 


182  THE   HOLY    TRINITY. 

world  as  Son  of  God.  2d.  Because  the  word  avadrtjdas,  having 
raised  vp,  refers  to  the  raising  up  Christ  at  his  birth,  and  not 
to  his  resurrection  (there  is  nothing  in  the  Greek  corresponding 
to  the  word  again  in  the  English).  When  this  word  is  used  to 
designate  the  resurrection  it  is  usually  qualified  by  the  phrase 
from,  the  dead,  as  in  verse  34.  "On  Si  dvi6rrj6Ev  dwdv  ex  vexpcSv. 
Verse  32  declares  the  fulfillment  of  the  promise  referred  to  in 
verse  23. — See  Alexander's  "  Com.  on  Acts." 

59.  State  the  orthodox  answer  to  the  question  why  Christ  is 
called  "Son  of  God" 

The  orthodox  doctrine  is  that  Christ  is  called  "  Son  of  God ' 
in  Scripture  to  indicate  his  eternal  and  necessary  personal  rela- 
tion as  the  Second  Person  of  the  Godhead  to  the  First  Person, 
who  is  called  Father  to  indicate  the  reciprocal  relation. 

60.  How  is  the  doctrine  stated  in  tlie  Nicene  and  Athanasian 
Creeds  and  in  the  Westminster  Confession? 

Nicene  Creed. — "  Son  of  God,  begotten  of  his  Father  before 
all  worlds ;  God  of  God,  Light  of  Light,  very  God  of  very  God, 
begotten  not  made,  being  of  one  substance  with  the  Father." 

Athanasian  Creed. — "The  Son  is  from  the  Father  alone,  nei- 
ther made,  nor  created,  but  begotten." 

Westminster  Confession. — "The  Father  is  of  none,  neither 
begotten  nor  proceeding;  the  Son  is  eternally  begotten  of  the 
Father;  the  Holy  Ghost  eternally  proceeding  from  the  Father 
and  the  Son." 

61.  What  is  the  common  statement  and  explanation  of  this  doc- 
trine given  by  orthodox  ivriters  ? 

The  eternal  generation  of  the  Son  is  commonly  defined  to 
be  an  eternal  personal  act  of  the  Father,  wherein,  by  necessity 
of  nature,  not  by  choice  of  will,  he  generates  the  person  (not 
the  essence)  of  the  Son,  by  communicating  to  him  the  whole 
indivisible  substance  of  the  Godhead,  without  division,  aliena- 
tion, or  change,  so  that  the  Son  is  the  express  image  of  his 
Father's  person,  and  eternally  continues,  not  from  the  Father, 
but  in  the  Father,  and  the  Father  in  the  Son. — See  particularly 
Heb.  i.  3;  John  x.  38;  xiv.  11;  xvii.  21.  The  principal  Scrip- 
tural support  of  the  doctrine  of  derivation  is  John  v.  26. — Tur- 
retin,  Tom.  I.,  L.  3,  Q.  29. 

Those  theologians  who  insist  upon  this  definition  believe 
that  the  idea  of  derivation  is  necessarily  implied  in  generation ; 
that  it  is  indicated  by  both  the  reciprocal  terms  Father  and 
Son,  and  by  the  entire  representation  given  in  the  Scriptures 
as  to  the  relation  and  order  of  the  persons  of  the  Godhead,  the 


THE    ETERNAL    SONSHIP    OF   CHRIST.  183 

Father  always  standing  for  the  Godhead  considered  absolutely; 
and  they  hold  that  this  theory  is  necessary  to  the  vindication 
of  the  essential  unity  of  the  three  persons.  The  older  theo- 
logians, therefore,  styled  the  Father  7t?jy^  Qeoryros,  fountain  of 
Godlueod,  and  dizia  viuv,  principle  or  cause  of  the  Son,  while  the 
Son  and  Holy  Ghost  were  both  called  dinaroi  (those  depend- 
ing upon  another  as  their  principle  or  cause). 

They  at  the  same  time  guarded  the  essential  equality  of  the 
Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost  with  the  Father,  by  saying,  1st,  that 
the  whole  divine  essence,  without  division  or  change,  and, 
therefore,  all  the  divine  attributes,  were  communicated  to 
them  ;  and,  2d,  that  this  communication  was  made  by  an 
eternal  and  necessary  act  of  the  Father,  and  not  of  his  mere 
will.  In  all  the  early  Creeds  this  identity  as  to  essence,  and 
subordination  as  to  mode  of  subsistence  and  operation,  is  ex- 
pressed by  the  phrases  as  above,  ©so?  ex  Bsov,  <pcas  ex  qxaro?; 
kx  tov  Ttarpoi;  0£o£  dXqQivoS  ex  Qsov  dXr/Bivov  ;  yevvrjOsii  6v  xoiT/OeiS; 
ojuoovdiov  tgq  itavpi. 

62.  State  how  they  endeavored  to  guard  tlieir  doctrine  from  all 
anthropomorphic  grossness. 

In  order  to  guard  their  doctrine  of  derivation  and  eternal 
generation  from  all  gross  anthropomorphic  conceptions  they 
carefully  maintained  that  it  was — (1)  dxpov&s,  timeless,  eternal; 
(2)  ddcofiacTGos,  not  bodily,  spiritual;  (3)  a'o'paro?,  invisible;  (4)  dxoo- 
pi6roo?,  not  a  local  transference,  a  communication  not  without  but 
within  the  GodJiead;  (5)  dnaQaoz,  without  passion  or  change;  (6) 
navreXGJs  dxaxdXrjTcxo'i,  altogetJier  incomprehensible. 

63.  What  is  essential  to  Hue  Scriptural  doctrine  of  the  eternal 
generation  of  the  Son? 

In  the  above  rendered  account  of  the  orthodox  doctrine 
there  is  nothing  inconsistent  with  revealed  truth.  The  idea 
of  derivation,  as  involved  in  the  generation  of  the  Son  by  the 
Father,  appears  rather  to  be  a  rational  explanation  of  revealed 
facts  than  a  revealed  fact  itself.  On  such  a  subject,  therefore, 
it  should  be  held  in  suspense.  All  that  is  explicitly  revealed 
is,  1st,  the  term  Son  is  applied  to  Christ  as  the  second  person 
of  the  Godhead.  2d.  This  term,  and  the  equivalent  one,  "only 
begotten,"  reveal  some  relation,  within  the  Godhead,  of  the 
person  of  the  Son  to  the  person  of  the  Father;  the  designa- 
tion Father  being  reciprocal  to  that  of  Son.  3d.  That  this  re- 
lation is  such  that  Father  and  Son  are  the  same  in  substance, 
and  are  personally  equal ;  that  the  Father  is  first  and  the  Son 
Becond  in  the  order  of  revelation  and  operation,  that  the  Sor 


184  THE   HOLY   TRINITY. 

is  the  express  image  of  the  Father's  person,  not  the  Father  of 
the  Son's,  and  that  the  Son  is  not  from  the  Father,  but  in  the 
Father,  and  the  Father  in  the  Son. 

64.  How  may  it  be  shown  that  the  common  doctrine  is  not  self- 
contradictory  ? 

There  is  evidently  no  inconsistency  in  the  simple  Scriptural 
statement  given  in  the  answer  to  the  last  question.  Heterodox 
controversialists,  however,  have  claimed  that  there  is  a  mani- 
fest inconsistency  in  the  orthodox  theory  that  the  Father  com- 
municates to  the  Son  the  whole  divine  essence  without  alien- 
ating it  from  himself,  dividing  or  otherwise  changing  it.  This 
subject  does  not  fall  within  the  legitimate  sphere  of  human 
logic,  yet  it  is  evident  that  this  theory  involves  no  contradic- 
tion and  no  mystery  greater  than  that  involved  in  the  whole 
essence  of  God  being  at  the  same  time  present,  without  divi- 
sion or  diffusion,  to  every  point  of  space. 

65.  By  ivlxat  terms,  besides  that  of  "Son"  is  the  personal  cJiar- 
acter  of  the  Second  Person,  and  his  relation  to  tJie  First  Person 
designated? 

AoyoS  rtpoS  tov  Qeovholi  QeoS  rjv  6  \6yo$.  Tlie  Word  with.  God, 
and  who  is  God — John  i.  1.  Eincjv  tov  deov  tov  dopdvov.  The 
Image  of  the  invisible  God — 2  Cor  iv.  4;  Col.  i.  15.  Xapanzr/p  tt]s 
V7co6rdd£ooi  avrov.  "  The  image  or  impression  of  his  beinq  or  sub- 
stance"— Heb.  i.  3.  Ev  iiopcpy  Qeov.  The  form  of  God — Phil.  ii.  6; 
,Aita.vya6iJ.a.  rfji  So£?/s  dvtov.  "  Tlie  shining  forth  of  his  glory" — 
Heb.  i.  3. 

QQ.  What  is  the  distinction  which  some  of  the  fathers  made  be- 
tween the  eternal,  tlie  ante-mundane,  and  the  mundane  generation  of 
the  Son  ? 

1st.  By  his  eternal  generation  they  intended  to  mark  his 
essential  relation  to  the  Father  as  his  consubstantial  and  eter- 
nal Son. 

2d.  By  his  ante-mundane  generation  they  meant  to  signify 
the  commencement  of  the  outgoings  of  his  energy,  and  the 
manifestation  of  his  person  beyond  the  bosom  of  the  Godhead, 
in  the  sphere  of  external  creation,  etc. — Col.  i.  15. 

3d.  By  his  mundane  generation  they  intended  his  supernat- 
ural birth  in  the  flesh. — Luke  i.  35. 

67.  What  is  the  distinction  which  some  of  the  fathers  made  be 
tween  tlie  Xoyos  evSidOeros  (ratio  insita,  reason),  and  the  \6yo 
npo<popix6?  (ratio  prolata,  reason  brought  forth,  or  expressed)? 


THE    ETERNAL    SONSHIP   OF   CHRIST.  185 

The  orthodox  fathers  used  the  phrase  logos  endiatJietos  to 
designate  the  Word,  whom  they  held  to  be  a  distinct  person, 
dwelling  from  eternity  with  the  Father.  The  ground  of  theii 
use  of  this  phrase  was  a  fanciful  analogy  which  they  conceived 
existed  between  the  relation  which  the  eternal  logos  (word,  or 
reason)  (John  i.  1)  sustains  to  the  Father,  and  the  relation 
which  the  reason  of  a  man  sustains  to  his  own  rational  soul. 
Thus  the  logos  endiatJietos  was  God's  own  reflective  idea  hypos- 
tatized.  They  were  led  to  this  vain  attempt  to  philosophize 
upon  an  incomprehensible  subject  by  the  influence  exerted 
upon  them  by  the  Platonic  philosophers  of  that  age,  who 
taught  a  sort  of  metaphysical  trinity,  e.  g.,  that  in  the  one 
God  there  were  three  constituent  principles,  to  dyaGov,  good- 
ness, voDs,  intelligence,  i>vxn,  vitality.  Their  immediate  object 
was  to  illustrate  the  essential  unity  of  the  Trinity,  and  to 
prove,  against  the  Arians,  the  essential  divinity  of  the  Son, 
from  the  application  to  him  by  John  of  the  epithet  Xoyos  Qsov. 

By  the  phrase  logos  propJioricos  they  intended  to  designate 
him  as  the  reason  of  God  revealed,  when  he  proceeded  from  the 
Father  in  the  work  of  creation. — See  Hill's  "  Lectures." 

The  Arians,  taking  advantage  of  the  essential  inadequacy 
of  this  language,  confused  the  controversy  by  acknowledging 
that  the  phrase  logos  propJioricos  did  truly  apply  to  Christ,  since 
he  came  forth  from  God  as  the  first  and  highest  creation  and 
image  of  his  mind.  But  declaring,  with  some  color  of  truth, 
that  the  phrase  logos  endiatJietos,  when  applied  to  Christ,  taught 
pure  Sabellianism,  since  it  marked  no  personal  distinction,  but 
signified  nothing  else  than  the  mind  of  the  Father  itself. 

68.  If  God  is  "  ens  a  se  ipso,"  self-existent,  liow  can  the  Son  he 
ready  God,  if  he  be  "Qsos  ek  6eov,»  God  from  the  Father? 

The  objection  presented  in  this  question  does  not  press 
against  the  Scriptural  statement  of  the  eternal  generation  of 
the  Son  presented  above  (Question  63),  but  solely  against  the 
theory  of  derivation  as  involved  in  the  ordinary  definition  (see 
Question  61).  Those  who  insist  upon  the  validity  of  that  view 
rebut  the  objection  by  saying  that  self-existence  is  an  attribute 
of  essence,  not  of  person.  The  Father,  as  a  person,  generates 
the  person,  not  the  essence  of  the  Son,  whose  person  is  consti- 
tuted of  the  very  same  self-existent  essence  with  the  Father's. 
Thus  the  Son  is  ccvtoQeoz,  i.  e.,  Deus  a  se  ipso  as  to  his  essence, 
but  fleo's  ex  Qsov,  God  from  God,  as  to  his  person. 

69.  What  argument  for  the  eternal  sonsJiip  of  Christ  may  bt 
derived  from  the  designation  of  the  persons  of  the  Trinity  as  Father. 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost? 


18G  THE    HOLY    TRINITY. 

In  the  apostolical  benediction  and  the  formula  of  baptism 
the  one  God  is  designated  as  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost. 
The  term  Son  can  not  here  be  applied  to  Christ  as  an  official 
title,  or  as  a  miraculously  generated  man,  because,  1st,  he  is  so 
called  as  one  of  the  three  divine  persons  constituting  the  God- 
head. 2d.  The  term  Son  is  reciprocal  to  the  term  Father,  and 
therefore  designates  the  relation  of  the  second  person  to  the 
first.  Whatever  this  relation  may  involve  besides,  it  evidently 
must  be  eternal  and  necessary,  and  includes  paternity  on  the 
part  of  the  first  person,  and  filiation  on  the  part  of  the  second. 

70.  What  argument  in  support  of  this  doctrine  may  be  derived 
from  the  use  of  the  ivord  son  in  Matt.  xi.  27  and  Luke  x.  22  ? 

In  both  of  these  passages  the  term  Son  is  used  to  designate 
the  divine  nature  of  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity  in  his  re- 
lation to  the  first.  The  Son,  as  Son,  knows  and  is  known  by 
the  Father  as  Father.  He  is  infinite  in  knowledge  and  there- 
fore knows  the  Father.  He  is  infinite  in  being  and  therefore 
can  be  known  by  none  other  than  the  Father. 

71.  State  tine  argument  from  John  l.  1-14. 

Here  the  eternal  Word,  who  was  God,  discovered  himself  as 
such  to  his  disciples  by  the  manifestation  of  his  native  divine 
glory,  "  the  glory  as  of  the  only  begotten  of  the  Father."  He 
was  "  only  begotten  Son,"  therefore  as  God,  and  not  either  as 
Mediator  or  as  man. 

72.  State  tlie  argument  from  the  application  in  Scripture  of  the 
terms  tiovoyevrfs,  {only  begotten)  and  i'Sioz,  {own)  to  the  Sonship 
of  Christ. 

Although  many  of  God's  creatures  are  called  his  sons,  the 
phrase,  Son  of  God,  in  the  singular,  and  when  limited  by  the 
terms  "  own  "  and  "  only  begotten,"  is  applied  only  to  Christ. 

Christ  is  called  "only  begotten  Son  of  God." — John  i.  14,  18; 
iii.  16,  18;  1  John  iv.  9. 

In  John  v.  18,  Christ  calls  God  his  own  Father  (see  Greek). 
He  is  called  the  own  Son  of  the  Father. — Rom.  viii.  32. 

The  use  of  these  qualifying  terms  proves  that  Christ  is 
called  Son  of  God  in  a  sense  different  from  that  in  which  any 
other  is  so  called.  Therefore  it  designates  him  as  God  and  not 
as  man,  nor  as  the  bearer  of  an  office. 

73.  WJiat  is  the  argument  derived  from  John  v.  22,  and  con- 
text, and  from  John  x.  33-37  ? 

In  the  first  passage  the  terms  Father  and  Son  are  used  to 


THE    ETERNAL    S0NSJ1IP    OF   CHRIST.  187 

designate  two  divine  and  equal  persons.     As  Son,  Christ  does 
whatsoever  the  Father  doeth,  and  is  to  receive  equal  honor. 

In  the  second  passage,  Jesus  assumes  the  title,  "Son  of 
God,"  as  equivalent  to  asserting  that  he  was  God.  The  Jews 
charging  it  upon  him  as  blasphemy. 

74.  What  is  the  evidence  furnished  by  such  passages  as  speak 
of  tlie  manifestation,  giving  or  sending  of  the  Son? 

See  1  John  iii.  8;  Eom.  viii.  3;  John  hi.  16,  etc. 
To  say  that  the  Son  was  sent  or  manifested  implies  that  he 
was  Son  before  he  was  sent  or  manifested  as  such. 

75.  State  the  argument  from  Rom.  i.  3,  4 

The  argument  from  this  passage  is  twofold:  1st.  The  Son 
of  God  is  declared  to  have  been  made  flesh,  and  therefore  must 
have  pre-existed  as  Son.  2d.  By  the  resurrection  he  was  pow- 
erfully manifested  to  be  the  Son  of  God  as  to  his  divine  nature. 
The  phrases,  according  to  the  flesh,  and  according  to  the  spirit  of 
holiness,  are  evidently  antithetical,  designating  severally  the 
Lord's  human  and  divine  natures. 

76.  State  the  argument  from  Rom.  viii.  3. 

Here  God's  own  Son  was  sent  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh. 
Obviously  he  must  have  pre-existed  as  such  before  he  assumed 
the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh,  the  assumption  of  which  certainly 
could  not  have  constituted  him  the  own  Son  of  God. 

77.  State  the  argument  from  Col.  i.  15-21. 

In  this  passage  the  apostle  sets  forth  at  length  the  nature 
and  glory  of  him  whom,  in  the  thirteenth  verse,  he  had  called 
God's  dear  Son.  Thus  he  proves  that  Christ  as  Son  is  the  im- 
age of  the  invisible  God,  and  that  by  him  all  things  consist,  etc. 

78.  State  the  argument  from  Heb.  i.  5-8. 

Paul  is  here  setting  forth  the  superiority  of  Christ  as  a 
divine  person.  As  divine  he  calls  him  "  the  Son,"  "  the  first 
begotten."  This-  Son  is  brought  into  the  world,  and  therefore 
must  have  pre-existed  as  such.  As  Son  he  is  declared  to  be 
God,  and  to  reign  upon  an  everlasting  throne. 

79.  How  can  those  passages  ivhich  speak  of  the  Son  as  inferior 
and  subject  to  tlve  Fatlier  be  reconciled  with  this  doctrine  ? 

It  is  objected  that  such  passages  prove  that  Jesus,  as  Son, 
is  inferior  and  subject  to  the  Father. 

We  answer  that  in  John  iii.  13  the  "Son  of  Man"  is  said  to 
have  come  down  from  heaven,  and  to  be  in  heaven.    But  surely 


188  THE    HOLY    TRINITY. 

Jesus,  as  Son  of  Man,  was  not  omnipresent.  In  Acts  xx.  28 
God  is  said  to  purchase  his  church  with  his  own  blood;  but 
surely  Christ,  as  God,  did  not  shed  his  blood.  The  explanation 
of  this  is  that  it  is  the  common  usage  of  Scripture  to  designate 
the  single  person  of  the  God-man  by  a  title  belonging  to  him 
as  the  possessor  of  one  nature,  while  the  condition,  attribute, 
relation,  or  action  predicated  of  him  is  true  only  of  the  other 
nature.  Thus  in  the  passages  in  question  he  is  called  "Son  of 
God,"  because  he  is  the  eternal  Word,  while  at  the  same  time 
he  is  said  to  be  inferior  to  the  Father,  because  he  is  also  man 
and  mediator. 

(II.)  Tub  relation  which  the  third  Person  sustains  to  the 

FIRST   AND    SECOND,  OR  THE  ETERNAL   PROCESSION    OF   THE    HoLY  GHOST. 

80.  What  is  the  etymology  of  the  word  Spirit,  and  the  usage  of 
its  Hebrew  and  Gi*eek  equivalents? 

The  English  word  spirit  is  from  the  Latin  spiritus,  breath, 
wind,  air,  life,  soul,  which  in  turn  is  from  the  verb  spiro,  to 
breathe.  The  equivalent  Hebrew  word,  nn,  has  a  perfectly 
analogous  usage.  1st.  Its  primary  sense  is  wind,  air  in  mo- 
tion, Gen.  viii.  1;  then,  2d,  breath,  the  breath  of  life,  Gen.  vi. 
17;  Job  xvii.  1;  3d,  animal  soul,  vital  principle  in  men  and 
animals,  1  Sam.  xxx.  12;  4th,  rational  soul  of  man,  Gen.  xli.  8, 
and  hence,  metaphorically,  disposition,  temperament,  Num.  v. 
14;  5th,  Spirit  of  Jehovah,  Gen.  i.  2;  Ps.  li.  11. — Gesenius'  "Lex," 

The  equivalent  Greek  word,  itvsvjaa,  has  also  the  same  usage. 
It  is  derived  from  nyseo,  to  breathe,  to  blow.  It  signifies,  1st, 
breath,  Rev.  xi.  11;  2d,  air  in  motion,  John  iii.  8;  3d,  the  vital 
principle,  Matt,  xxvii.  50;  4th,  the  rational  soul,  spoken  (1)  of 
the  disembodied  spirits  of  men,  Heb.  xii.  23;  (2)  of  devils, 
Matt  x.  1;  (3)  of  angels,  Heb.  i.  14;  (4)  the  Spirit  of  God, 
spoken  of  God,  a,  absolutely  as  an  attribute  of  his  essence,  John 
iv.  24;  and  b  as  the  personal  designation  of  the  third  person  of 
the  Trinity,  who  is  called  Spirit  of  God,  or  of  the  Lord,  and  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  or  of  Jesus,  or  of  the  Son 
of  God,  Acts  xvi.  6,  7 ;  Eom.  viii.  9 ;  2  Cor.  iii.  17 ;  Gal.  iv.  6 ; 
Phil.  i.  19;  1  Pet.  i.  11. 

81.  Why  is  the  third  person  of  the  Trinity  called  the  Sjnrit  ? 

As  the  one  indivisible  divine  essence  which  is  common  to 
each  of  the  divine  persons  alike  is  spiritual,  this  term,  as  the 
personal  designation  of  the  third  person,  can  not  be  intended  to 
signify  the  fact  that  he  is  a  spirit  as  to  his  essence,  but  rather 
to  mark  what  is  peculiar  to  his  person,  i.  e.,  his  personal  relation 
to  the  Father  and  the  Son,  and  the  peculiar  mode  of  his  opera* 


THE  ETERNAL  PROCESSION  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.     189 

tion  ad  extra.  As  the  reciprocal  epithets  Father  and  Son  are 
nsed  to  indicate,  so  far  forth,  the  mutual  relations  of  the  first 
and  second  persons,  so  the  epithets,  Spirit,  Spirit  of  God,  Spirit 
of  the  Son,  Spirit  which  proceedeth  from  the  Father,  are  applied 
to  the  third  person  to  indicate,  so  far  forth,  the  relation  of  the 
third  person  to  the  first  and  second. 

82.  Why  is  he  called  Holy  Spirit  ? 

As  holiness  is  an  attribute  of  the  divine  essence,  and  the 
glory  equally  of  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  it  can  not  be 
applied  in  any  pre-eminent  sense  as  a  personal  characteristic 
to  the  third  person.  It  indicates,  therefore,  the  peculiar  nature 
of  his  operation.  He  is  called  the  Holy  Spirit  because  he  is  the 
author  of  holiness  throughout  the  universe.  As  the  Son  is  also 
styled  Logos,  or  God,  the  Revealer,  so  the  Holy  Spirit  is  God, 
the  Operator,  the  end  and  glory  of  whose  work  in  the  moral 
world  is  holiness,  as  in  the  physical  world  beauty. 

83.  Why  is  he  called  the  Spirit  of  God  ? 

This  phrase  expresses  his  divinity,  his  relation  to  the  God- 
head as  himself  God,  1  Cor.  ii.  11;  his  intimate  personal  relation 
to  the  Father  as  his  consubstantial  spirit  proceeding  from  him, 
John  xv.  26;  and  the  fact  that  he  is  the  divine  Spirit,  which 
proceeding  from  God  operates  upon  the  creature,  Ps.  civ.  30; 
1  Pet.  iv.  14. 

84.  Why  is  the  third  person  caMed  the  Spirit  of  Christ  ? 

See  Gal.  iv.  6;  Rom.  viii.  9;  Phil.  i.  19;  1  Peter  i.  11.  As 
the  form  of  expression  is  identical  in  the  several  phrases,  Spirit 
of  God,  and  Spirit  of  the  Son,  and  as  the  Scriptures,  with  one 
exception,  John  xv.  26,  uniformly  predicate  every  thing  of  the 
relation  of  the  Spirit  to  the  Son,  that  they  predicate  of  the  rela- 
tion of  the  Spirit  to  the  Father,  it  appears  evident  that  he  is 
called  Spirit  of  the  Son  for  the  same  reason  that  he  is  called 
Spirit  of  God. 

This  phrase  also  additionally  sets  forth  the  official  relation 
which  the  Spirit  in  his  agency  in  the  work  of  redemption 
sustains  to  the  God-man,  in  taking  of  his,  and  showing  them 
to  us,  John  xvi.  14. 

85.  Wliat  is  meant  by  the  tJieological  phrase,  Procession  of  the 
Holy  Ghost? 

Theologians  intend  by  this  phrase  to  designate  the  rela- 
tion which  the  third  person  sustains  to  the  first  and  second, 
wherein  by  an  eternal  and  necessaiy,  i.  e.,  not  voluntary,  acl 


100  THE    HOLY    TRINITY. 

of  the  Father  and  the  Son,  their  whole  identical  divine  essence, 
withont  alienation,  division,  or  change,  is  communicated  to  the 
Holy  Ghost. 

86.  IV hat  distinction  do  theologians  make  betiveen  "procession" 
and  "generation?" 

As  this  entire  subject  infinitely  transcends  the  measure  of 
our  faculties,  we  can  do  nothing  further  than  classify  and  con- 
trast those  predicates  which  inspiration  has  applied  to  the  rela- 
tion of  Father  and  Son  with  those  which  it  has  applied  to  the 
relation  of  the  Spirit  to  the  Father  and  Son. 

Thus  Turretin,  Vol.  I.,  L.  3.,  Q.  31.  They  differ,  "1st.  As  to 
source,  the  Son  emanates  from  the  Father  only,  but  the  Spirit 
from  the  Father  and  the  Son  at  the  same  time.  2d.  As  to  mode. 
The  Son  emanates  in  the  way  of  generation,  which  affects  not 
only  personality,  but  similitude,  on  account  of  which  the  Son  is 
called  the  image  of  the  Father,  and  in  consequence  of  which  he 
receives  the  property  of  communicating  the  same  essence  to 
another  person ;  but  the  Spirit,  by  the  way  of  spiration,  which 
effects  only  personality,  and  in  consequence  of  which  the  person 
who  proceeds  does  not  receive  the  property  of  communicating 
the  same  essence  to  another  person.  3d.  As  to  order.  The  Son 
is  second  person,  and  the  Spirit  third,  and  though  both  are  eter- 
nal, without  beginning  or  succession,  yet,  in  our  mode  of  con- 
ception, generation  precedes  procession."  The  technical  terms 
used  to  express  these  two  mysteries  are  r£wrj6i<;,  generation 
generation.     'EHTtopevtiiS,  eKneutpii,  processio,  missio,  procession. 

"The  schoolmen  vainly  attempted  to  found  a  distinction 
between  generation  and  spiration  upon  the  different  operations 
of  the  divine  intellect  and  the  divine  will.  They  say  the  Son 
was  generated  per  modum  inteUectus,  whence  he  is  called  the 
Word  of  God.  The  Spirit  proceeds  per  modum  voluntatis,  whence 
he  is  called  Love." 

87.  What  is  the  Scripture  ground  for  this  doctrine? 

What  we  remarked  above  ('Question  53),  concerning  the 
common  theological  definition  of  the  eternal  generation  of  the 
Son,  holds  true  also  with  reference  to  the  common  definition 
of  the  eternal  procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  viz.,  that  in  order 
to  make  the  method  of  the  divine  unity  in  Trinity  more  appar- 
ent, theologians  have  pressed  the  idea  of  derivation  and  sub- 
ordination in  the  order  of  personal  subsistence  too  far.  This 
ground  is  at  once  sacred  and  mysterious.  The  points  given 
by  Scripture  are  not  to  be  pressed  nor  speculated  upon,  but 
received  and  confessed  nakedly. 

The  data  of  inspiration  are  simply  as  follows:  1st.  Father, 


THE  ETERNAL  PROCESSION  OF  THE  HOLY  GHOST.      191 

Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  three  divine  persons,  possess  from  eter- 
nity the  one  whole  identical,  indivisible,  unchangeable  essence. 
2d.  The  Father  from  his  characteristic  personal  name,  and  the 
order  in  which  his  name  uniformly  occurs  in  Scripture,  and 
from  the  fact  that  the  Son  is  called  his  and  his  only  begotten, 
and  that  the  Spirit  is  called  his,  the  one  proceeding  from  him, 
and  from  the  order  of  Iris  manifestation  and  operation  ad  extra, 
is  evidently  in  same,  way  first  in  order  of  personal  subsistence 
relatively  to  the  Son  and  Spirit.  3d.  For  the  same  reason  (see 
below,  Question  89)  the  Son,  in  the  order  of  personal  subsist- 
ence, is  before  the  Spirit.  4th.  What  the  real  nature  of  these 
distinctions  in  the  order  of  personal  subsistence  may  be  is  made 
known  to  us  only  so  far — (1.)  That  it  involves  no  distinction 
as  to  time,  since  all  are  alike  eternal.  (2.)  It  does  not  depend 
upon  any  voluntary  action,  for  that  would  make  the  second 
person  dependent  upon  the  first,  and  the  third  upon  the  first 
and  second,  while  they  are  all  "equal  in  power  and  glory." 
(3.)  It  is  such  a  relation  that  the  second  person  is  eternally 
only  begotten  Son  of  the  first,  and  the  third  is  eternally  the 
Spirit  of  the  first  and  second. 

88.  What  ivas  tlue  difference  behveen  tJw  Greek  and  Latin  churches 
on  this  doctrine  ? 

The  famous  Council  of  Nice,  a.  d.  325,  while  so  accurately 
defining  the  doctrine  of  the  Godhead  of  the  Son,  left  the  testi- 
mony concerning  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  vague  form  in  which 
it  stood  in  the  ancient  creed,  "in  the  Holy  Ghost."  But  the 
heresy  of  Macedonius,  who  denied  the  divinity  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  having  sprung  up  in  the  meantime,  the  Council  of  Con- 
stantinople, a.  d.  381,  completed  the  testimony  of  the  Nicene 
Creed  thus,  "I  believe  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  Lord,  the  Author 
of  Life,  who  proceedeth  from  the  Father." 

There  subsequently  arose  a  controversy  upon  the  question, 
whether  the  Scriptures  do  or  do  not  represent  the  Holy  Spirit 
as  sustaining  precisely  the  same  relation  to  the  Son  that  he 
does  to  the  Father.  This  the  Latins  generally  affirmed,  and  at 
the  third  ecclesiastical  assembly  at  Toledo,  a.  d.  589,  they  added 
the  word  filioque  (and  the  Son)  to  the  Latin  version  of  the 
Constantinopolitan  Creed,  making  the  clause  read  "  Credimus 
in  Spiritum  Sanctum  qui  a  Patre  Filioque  procedit."  The  Greek 
Church  violently  opposed  this,  and  to  this  day  reject  it.  For 
a  short  time  they  were  satisfied  with  the  compromise,  "The 
Spirit  proceeding  from  the  Father  through  the  Son,"  which  was 
finally  rejected  by  both  parties.  The  Constantinopolitan  Creed, 
as  amended  at  the  Council  of  Toledo,  is  the  one  now  adopted 


192  THE    HOLY    TRINITY. 

by  the  Catholic  Church,   and  recognized  by  all  Protestants, 
currently  bearing  the  title  of  "Nicene  Creed." 

89.  How  may  it  be  proved  that,  as  far  as  revealed,  the  Spirit 
sustains  precisely  the  same  relation  to  tlie  Son  which  he  does  to  the 
Father? 

The  epithet  "Spirit"  is  the  characteristic  personal  designa- 
tion of  the  third  Person.  Whatever  is  revealed  of  his  eternal 
and  necessary  personal  relation  to  either  the  Father  or  the  Son 
is  indicated  by  this  word.  Yet  he  is  called  the  Spirit  of  the 
Son,  as  well  as  the  Spirit  of  the  Father.  He  possesses  the  same 
identical  essence  of  the  Son  as  of  the  Father.  The  Son  sends 
and  operates  through  the  Spirit  as  the  Father  does.  Wherever 
their  Spirit  is  there  both  Father  and  Son  are  revealed,  and 
there  they  exercise  their  power. — John  xiv.  16,  26;  xv.  26; 
xvi.  7.  With  the  single  exception  of  the  phrase,  "  which  pro- 
ceedeth  from  the  Father"  (John  xv.  26),  the  Scriptures  apply 
precisely  the  same  predicates  to  the  relation  of  the  Spirit  to 
the  Son  that  they  do  to  his  relation  to  the  Father. 

90.  What  office  does  the  Spirit  discharge  in  the  economy  of 
redemption  ? 

In  the  economy  of  redemption,  as  universally  in  all  the  act- 
ings of  the  Godhead  upon  the  creature,  God  the  Son  is  the 
revealed  God,  God  as  known,  and  God  the  Spirit  is  that  divine 
person  who  exerts  his  energy  immediately  upon  and  in  the 
creature.  He  is  styled  in  this  relation  in  the  creed  to  Kvpiov, 
xdi  to  Z,ooonoi6v.  The  Lord,  and  the  Giver  of  life.  For  a  more 
detailed  answer  see  Chapter  XXIV.,  on  "The  Mediatorial  Office 
of  Christ,"  Question  9. 

(III.)  The  Personal  Properties  peculiar  to  each  of  the  Tiiree 
Persons  6f  the  Godhead,  and  their  Order  of  Operation  ad  extra. 

91.  What  is  the  theological  meaning  of  the  word  property  as 
applied  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ?  and  ivliat  are  severally  the 
personal  properties  of  each  Person  of  the  Godhead. 

The  attributes  of  God  are  the  perfections  of  the  divine  es- 
sence, and  therefore  common  to  each  of  the  three  persons,  who 
are  "the  same  in  substance,"  and  therefore  "equal  in  power 
and  glory."  These  have  been  discussed  under  Chapter  VIII. 
The  projxrties  of  each  divine  person,  on  the  other  hand,  are 
those  peculiar  modes  of  personal  subsistence  whereby  each 
divine  person  is  constituted  as  such,  and  that  peculiar  order 
of  operation  whereby  each  person  is  distinguished  from  the 
others.     The  peculiar  distinguishing  properties  which  belong 


THE    CHA RATER    HYTOSTATICUS.  193 

to  each  Person  severally  is  called  technically  his  charater  hy- 
postatics— personal  character. 

As  far  as  these  are  revealed  to  us  the  personal  properties  of 
the  Father  are  as  follows:  He  is  begotten  by  none,  and  pro- 
ceeds from  none;  he  is  the  Father  of  the  Son,  having  begotten 
him  from  eternity;  the  Spirit  proceeds  from  him  and  is  his 
Spirit.  Thus  he  is  the  first  in  order  and  in  operation,  sending 
and  operating  through  the  Son  and  Spirit. 

The  personal  properties  of  the  Son  are  as  follows :  He  is  the 
Son,  ftom  eternity  the  only  begotten  of  the  Father.  The  Spirit 
is  the  Spirit  of  the  Son  even  as  he  is  the  Spirit  of  the  Father, 
he  is  sent  by  the  Father,  whom  he  reveals:  he,  even  as  the 
Father,  sends  and  operates  through  the  Spirit. 

The  personal  properties  of  the  Spirit  are  as  follows:  He  is 
the  Spirit  of  the  Father  and  the  Son,  from  eternity  proceeding 
from  them :  he  is  sent  by  the  Father  and  the  Son,  they  operat- 
ing through  him ;  he  operates  immediately  upon  the  creature. 

92.  What  kind  of  suhordination  did  the  early  ivriters  attribute 
to  the  second  and  third  persons  in  relation  to  tlie  first  ? 

They  held,  as  above  shown,  that  the  eternal  generation  of 
the  Son  by  the  Father,  and  the  eternal  procession  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  from  the  Father  and  the  Son  involved  in  both  instances 
the  derivation  of  essence.  They  illustrated  their  idea  of  this 
eternal  and  necessary  act  of  communication  by  the  example  of 
a  luminous  body,  which  necessarily  radiates  light  the  whole 
period  of  its  existence.  Thus  the  Son  is  defined  in  the  words 
of  the  Nicene  Creed,  "God  of  God,  Light  of  Light."  Thus  as 
the  radiance  of  the  sun  is  coeval  with  its  existence,  and  of  the 
same  essence  as  its  source,  by  this  illustration  they  designed 
to  signify  their  belief  in  the  identity  and  consequent  equality 
of  the  divine  persons  as  to  essence,  and  the  relative  subordina- 
tion of  the  second  to  the  first,  and  of  the  third  to  the  first 
and  second,  as  to  personal  subsistence  and  consequent  order 
of  operation. 

93.  What  is  expressed  by  the  use  of  the  terms  first,  second,  and 
third  in  reference  to  the  p&rsons  of  tlie  Trinity. 

These  terms  are  severally  applied  *to  the  persons  of  the 
Trinity  because — 1st.  The  Scriptures  uniformly  state  their  names 
in  this  order.  2d.  The  personal  designations,  Father  and  Son, 
and  Spirit  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son,  indicate  this  order  of 
personal  subsistence.  3d.  Their  respective  modes  of  operation 
ad  extra  is  always  in  this  order.  The  Father  sends  and  oper- 
ates through  the  Son,  and  the  Father  and  Son  send  and  operate 
13 


19-4  THE    HOLY    TRINITY. 

through  the  Spirit.  The  Scriptures  never  either  directly  or 
indirectly  indicate  the  reverse  order. 

As  to  the  out  ward  bearing  of  the  Godhead  upon  the  crea- 
ture it  would  appear,  that  the  Father  is  revealed  only  as  he  is 
seen  in  the  Son,  who  is  the  eternal  Logos,  or  divine  Word,  the 
express  image  of  the  Father's  person.  "No  man  hath  seen 
God  at  any  time,  the  only  begotten  Son,  who  is  in  the  bosom 
of  the  Father,  he  hath  declared  him." — John  i.  18.  And  the 
Father  and  Son  act  immediately  upon  the  creature  only  through 
the  Spirit. 

"The  Father  is  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  invisible, 
without  form,  whom  no  man  hath  seen  or  can  see." 

"The  Son  is  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  manifested." 

"The  Spirit  is  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  acting  im- 
mediately upon  the  creature,  and  thus  making  manifest  the 
Father  in  the  image  of  the  Son,  and  through  the  power  of  the 
Spirit." — "Higher  Christian  Life,"  by  Rev.  W.  E.  Boardman, 
p.  105. 

94.  How  can  the  assumption  of  personal  distinctions  in  the  God- 
head be  reconciled  icith  the  divine  unity  ? 

Although  this  tripersonal  constitution  of  the  Godhead  is 
altogether  beyond  the  capacity  of  reason,  and  is  ascertained  to 
us  only  through  a  supernatural  revelation,  there  is  evidently 
no  contradiction  in  the  twofold  proposition,  that  God  is  one, 
and  yet  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  are  that  one  God.  They 
are  one  in  one  sense,  and  threefold  in  an  entirely  different 
sense.  The  eternal,  self-existent,  divine  essence,  constituting 
all  those  divine  perfections  called  attributes  of  God  is,  in  the 
same  sense  and  degree,  common  to  all  the  persons.  In  this 
sense  they  are  one.  But  this  divine  essence  exists  eternally 
as  Father,  and  as  Son,  and  as  Holy  Ghost,  distinguished  by 
personal  properties.  In  this  sense  they  are  three.  We  believe 
this,  not  because  we  understand  it,  but  because  thus  God  has 
revealed  himself. 

95.  How  can  tfie  separate  incarnation  of  the  Son  be  reconciled 
with  tlie  divine  unity  ? 

The  Son  is  identical  with  the  Father  and  Spirit  as  to  essence, 
but  distinct  from  them  as  to  personal  subsistence.  In  the  incar- 
nation, the  divine  essence  of  the  Son  was  not  made  man,  but 
as  a  divine  person  he  entered  into  a  personal  relation  with  the 
human  nature  of  the  man  Christ  Jesus.  This  did  not  consti- 
tute a  new  person,  but  merely  introduced  a  new  element  into 
his  eternal  person.     It  was  the  personal  union  of  the  Son  with 


HERETICAL    OPINIONS.  195 

a  human  soul  and  body,  and  not  any  change  either  in  the 
divine  essence,  or  in  the  personal  relation  of  the  Son  to  the 
Father  or  the  Spirit. 

Heretical  Opinions. 

96.  WJtat  are  the  three  great  points  which  together  embrace  the 
mystery  of  the  Trinity  as  revealed  in  Scripture,  and  the  apparent 
irreconcilability  of  which,  with  each  other,  occasions  the  great  objec- 
tion to  this  doctrine  in  the  minds  of  heretics  of  all  classes  ? 

The  three  great  points  are  as  follows.  1st.  There  is  abso- 
lutely but  one  God,  but  one  self-existent,  eternal,  immutable, 
spiritual  substance.  2d.  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  are  each 
equally  this  one  God — are  each  in  common  constituted  of  the 
whole  of  this  inalienable  indivisible  essence,  having  the  same 
identical  numerical  essence,  and  the  same  identical  attributes. 
3d.  Nevertheless  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  are  three  distinct 
persons,  distinguished  each  by  his  several  personal  properties. 
The  difficulty  is,  that  in  the  case  of  the  only  created  spirits  of 
which  we  know  any  thing,  every  person  is  a  separate  spiritual 
essence,  and  distinct  personality  is  definitely  discriminated  by 
numerical  difference  of  attribute.  We  can  not  conceive  how 
three  persons  can  have  among  them  but  one  intelligence  and 
one  will. 

Hence  all  heresies  on  this  subject  have  sprung  from  one 
or  other  of  three  distinct  tendencies,  or  efforts  to  disembarrass 
this  doctrine  of  its  apparent  inconsistencies  by  the  denial  or 
abatement  of  one  or  other  of  its  three  constituent  elements. 
Thus — 1st.  One  tendency  is  to  cut  the  knot  of  the  difficulty  by 
denying  the  divinity  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  person- 
ality of  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  makes  God  the  Father  the  only 
divine  Person  and  the  possessor  of  the  only  divine  substance. 
2d.  A  second  heretical  tendency  is  to  deny  the  divine  unity 
and  to  maintain  the  co-existence  of  three  distinct  Gods,  distinct 
in  essence  as  well  as  in  person.  3d.  The  third  heretical  ten- 
dency is  to  press  the  divine  unity  so  far  as  to  make  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  one  and  the  same  identical  Person  as  well 
as  the  same  divine  essence,  admitting  them  only  to  be  differ- 
ent names,  or  different  aspects  or  functions  of  the  one  divine 
Person. 

97.  What  different  opinions  have  been  Jield  by  those  who  deny 
the  divinity  of  Christ,  and  eitJier  tJie  divinity  or  personality  of  tint 
Holy  Ghost? 

1st.  That  of  the  Humanitarians,  or  those  who  maintain  that 
Christ  is  a  mere  Man.     These  in  the  early  Church  were  known 


196  THE    HOLY    TRINITY. 

by  the  name  of  Ebionites,  and  Alogi — the  deniers  of  the  Logos, 
while  in  the  Modern  Church  they  are  known  as  Socinians.  For 
a  statement  of  the  History  and  Doctrine  of  the  Socinians,  see 
above,  Chapter  VI.,  Ques.  11  and  13.  Those  who  have  held 
that  Christ  is  a  mere  man  have  differed  among  themselves  as 
to  whether  he  was  miraculously  conceived  in  the  womb  of  the 
Virgin  or  not,  and  as  to  the  question  of  his  supernatural  en- 
dowments as  a  prophet,  and  as  to  the  degree  of  honor  and 
obedience  owed  from  us  to  him.  Some  admit  that  he  possessed 
a  supernatural  divine  commission  and  qualification  beyond  that 
vouchsafed  to  any  other  prophet.  Others  deny  the  supernat- 
ural element  altogether,  and  regard  him  as  a  mere  man  natu- 
rally endowed  with  a  very  superior  moral  and  religious  genius. 

All  of  this  class,  of  course,  hold  that  God  is  one  Person  as 
well  as  one  essence,  and  for  the  most  part  they  regard  the  term 
Holy  Ghost  as  only  a  designation  of  the  divine  energy  exer- 
cised in  human  affairs.  Some  of  the  German  Rationalists,  who 
for  the  most  part  agree  with  the  Socinians,  hold  that  the  phrase 
Holy  Ghost  properly  designates  the  one  divine  person  working 
in  the  world  of  nature — Creation  and  Providence.  Others  hold 
it  designates  God  in  the  church. 

2d.  The  Gnostics,  as  a  general  class,  held  that  the  supreme 
God  is  one  alike  in  essence  and  in  Person,  and  that  from  him 
emanates  different  orders  of  spiritual  beings,  none  of  them  in 
any  proper  sense  God,  yet  all  divine,  since  they  all  proceeded 
by  way  of  emanation  from  him.  These  are  called  iEons.  The 
Old  Testament  Jehovah,  or  Creator,  was  one  of  these  iEons,  of 
which  class  Christ  was  one  of  the  greatest.  The  entire  sum 
of  these  iEons  constituted,  in  the  view  of  the  Gnostics,  the 
TtcLv  to  xA-iipaajLia  rrji  Qeotijtos,  the  entire  sum  of  all  the  actual 
or  possible  self-revelations,  or  self-communications,  of  the  un- 
approachable Godhead,  which  the  Apostle  Paul  declared  to  be 
alone  and  fully  realized  in  Christ. — Col.  ii.  9. 

3d.  The  earlier  Nominal  Trinitarians.  "  In  their  construc- 
tion of  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity,  the  Son  is  not  a  subsistence 
{yic66Ta<Sii)  in  the  Essence,  but  only  an  effluence  (Suva/xis)  or  en- 
ergy issuing  from  it,  hence  they  could  not  logically  assert  the 
union  of  the  divine  nature,  or  the  very  substance  of  the  God- 
head with  the  humanity  of  Jesus.  A  merely  effluent  energy 
proceeding  from  the  deity,  and  entering  the  humanity  of  Christ, 
would  be  nothing  more  than  an  indwelling  inspiration  kindred 
to  that  of  the  prophets."— Shedd's  "Hist.  Christ.  Doc,"  Book 
HI.,  Ch.  5,  §  1. 

ith.  The  Avians,  so  called  from  Arius,  a  presbyter  of  Alex- 
andria during  the  first  part  of  the  fourth  century,  the  great 
opponent  of  Athanasins.     He  maintained  that  the  Godhead 


HERETICAL    OPINIONS.  197 

consists  of  one  eternal  person,  who  in  the  beginning,  before 
all  worlds,  created  in  his  own  image  a  super-angelic  being 
(erepoovdwv — of  a  different  essence),  his  only  begotten  Son, 
the  beginning  of  the  creation  of  God,  by  whom  also  he  made 
the  worlds.  The  first  and  greatest  creature  thus  created, 
through  the  Son  of  God,  was  the  Holy  Ghost.  In  the  full- 
ness of  time  this  Son  became  incarnate  in  the  person  of  Jesus 
of  Nazareth. 

4th.  The  doctrine  of  the  Semiarians.  This  party  was  so 
called  as  occupying  middle  ground  between  the  Arians  and 
the  Orthodox.  They  held  that  the  absolute,  self-existent  God 
was  one  person,  but  that  the  Son  was  a  divine  person  of  a 
glorious  essence,  like  to  (ojuoioudiov}  but  not  identical  with 
(6iio6v6iov)  that  of  the  Father,  and  from  eternity  begotten  by 
the  Father  by  a  free  exercise  of  will  and  power,  and  therefore 
subordinate  to  and  dependent  upon  him.  This  was  the  view 
first  disseminated  by  Origer,  and  advocated  with  great  power 
at  the  council  of  Nice  by  Eusebius  bishop  of  Cassarea,  and 
Eusebius  bishop  of  Nicomedia. 

It  appears  that  some  of  the  Semiarians  agreed  with  the 
Arians  in  regarding  the  Floly  Spirit  as  the  first  and  most  glo- 
rious creature  of  the  Son,  but  that  the  majority  regarded  the 
words  "Holy  Spirit,"  as  significant  of  a  divine  energy,  or  as  a 
synonym  of  the  word  God. — See  Neander's  "Ch.  Hist,"  Tor- 
rey's  translation,  Vol.  II.,  pp.  419,  420. 

98.  What  was  tlie  position  of  those  who  sought  to  relieve  the  dif- 
ficulty of  the  doctrine  by  denying  the  divine  unity  ? 

These  were  the  Tritheists,  who  admitted  that  there  were 
three  ovdlai  numerically  considered,  as  well  as  three  intodratieis 
in  the  Godhead.  They  held  the  idea  of  ovdia  (essence)  by 
which  the  essence  was  expressed,  should  be  understood  as  the 
mere  concept  of  a  genus,  and  the  intodradis  as  an  individual 
(a  species)  falling  under  this  generic  conception.  "That  is 
there  are  three  Gods,  generically  one,  individually  distinct." 
John  Ascusnages  of  Constantinople,  and  John  Philoponus  of 
Alexandria  (of  the  latter  part  of  sixth  century)  were  leaders 
of  the  Tritheists.  —  Smith's  edition  of  Hagenbach's  "Hist,  of 
Doc,"  Vol.  I.,  pp.  267,  268. 

99.  What  was  tlve  position  of  those  who  pressed  the  divine  unity 
m  opposition  to  the  Tritheists  so  far  as  to  make  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Ghost  one  Person  as  well  as  one  essence  ? 

The  Monarchians,  so  called  because  they  rejected  the  Triad 
and  maintained  the  Monad,  or  absolute  unity  as  to  person 
as  well  as  to  essence  in  the  Godhead,  were  of  several  Kinds ; 


198  THE    HOLY    TRINITY. 

some,  as  the  Alogi,  were  very  much  the  same  as  the  modern 
Unitarian,  which  term  is  intended  to  express  the  same  idea. 
Others,  as  Praxeas  of  Asia  Minor,  circum.  a.  d.  200 ;  Noetus  of 
Smyrna,  circum.  a.  d.  230,  and  Beryl  of  Bostra  in  Arabia,  cir- 
cum. a.  d.  250,  held  that  this  one  single  divine  Person  became 
incarnate  in  the  man  Christ,  and  hence  they  were  called  Patri- 
passians.  "Sabellius,  a  presbyter  of  Ptolemais,  who  lived  about 
the  middle  of  the  third  century,  adopted  the  notions  of  the  ear- 
lier Monarchians,  and  maintained  in  opposition  to  the  doctrine 
propounded  by  Origen  and  his  followers,  that  the  appellations 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit  were  only  so  many  different  man- 
ifestations and  names  of  one  and  the  same  divine  being.  He 
thus  converted  the  objective  and  real  distinction  of  persons 
(a  Trinity  of  essence)  into  a  merely  subjective  and  modalistic 
view  (the  Trinity  of  manifestation)." — Smith's  edition  of  Ha- 
genbach's  "Hist,  of  Doctrine,"  Vol.  I.,  p.  246.  "They  affirmed 
that  there  is  only  one  divine  Person.  This  one  only  Person 
conceived  of  in  his  abstract  simplicity  and  eternity  was  de- 
nominated God  the  Father;  but  in  his  incarnation,  he  was 
denominated  God  the  Son.  Sometimes  a  somewhat  different 
mode  of  apprehension  and  statement  was  employed.  God  in 
his  concealed,  unrevealed  nature  and  being  was  denominated 
God  the  Father,  and  when  he  comes  forth  from  the  depths  of 
his  essence,  creating  a  universe,  and  revealing  and  communi- 
cating himself  to  it,  he  therein  takes  on  a  different  relation, 
and  assumes  another  denomination;  namely,  God  the  Son,  or 
the  Logos." — Shedd's  "History  of  Christian  Doctrine,"  Book 
III.,  Ch.  2,  §  2. 

100.  By  what  considerations  may  it  be  shown  that  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  is  a  fundamental  element  of  the  Gospel? 

It  is  not  claimed  that  the  refinements  of  theological  spec- 
ulations upon  this  subject  are  essential  points  of  faith,  but 
simply  that  it  is  essential  to  salvation  to  believe  in  the  three 
persons  in  one  Godhead,  as  they  are  revealed  to  us  in  the 
Scriptures.  1st.  The  only  true  God  is  that  God  who  has  re- 
vealed himself  to  us  in  the  Scriptures,  and  the  very  end  of  the 
gospel  is  to  bring  us  to  the  knowledge  of  that  God  precisely 
in  the  aspect  in  which  he  has  revealed  himself.  Every  other 
conception  of  God  presents  a  false  god  to  the  mind  and  con- 
science. There  can  be  no  mutual  toleration  without  treason. 
Socinians,  Arians,  and  Trinitarians  worship  different  Gods. 

2d.  The  Scriptures  explicitly  assert  that  the  knowledge  of 
this  true  God  and  of  Jesus  Christ  whom  he  hath  sent  is  eternal 
life,  and  that  it  is  necessary  to  honor  the  Son  even  as  we  honor 
the  Father. — John  v.  23;  xiv.  1;  xvii.  3;  1  John  ii.  23;  v.  20. 


THE    DOCTRINE   ESSENTIAL.  199 

3d.  In  the  initiatory  rite  of  the  Christian  church  we  are 
baptized  into  the  name  of  every  several  person  of  the  Trinity. 
Matt,  xxviii.  19. 

4th.  The  whole  plan  of  redemption  in  all  its  parts  is  founded 
upon  it.  Justification,  sanctification,  adoption,  and  all  else  that 
makes  the  gospel  the  wisdom  and  power  of  God  unto  salvation, 
can  be  understood  only  in  the  light  of  this  fundamental  truth. 

5th.  As  an  historical  fact  it  is  beyond  dispute  that  in  what- 
ever church  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  has  been  abandoned  or 
obscured,  every  other  characteristic  doctrine  of  the  gospel  ha» 
gone  with  it 


CHAPTER  X. 

THE  DECREES  OF  GOD  IN  GENERAL. 

1.  What  are  Hue  decrees  of  God? 

See  "  Con.  of  Faith,"  chap.  iii.  "  Larger  Cat,"  Q.  12,  and 
"  Shorter  Cat.,"  Q.  7. 

The  decree  of  God  is  his  eternal,  unchangeable,  holy,  wise, 
and  sovereign  purpose,  comprehending  at  once  all  things  that 
ever  were  or  will  be  in  their  causes,  conditions,  successions, 
and  relations,  and  determining  their  certain  futurition.  The 
several  contents  of  this  one  eternal  purpose  are,  because  of  the 
limitation  of  our  faculties,  necessarily  conceived  of  by  us  in 
partial  aspects,  and  in  logical  relations,  and  are  therefore  styled 
Decrees. 

2.  How  are  the  acts  of  God  classified,  and  to  ivhich  class  do 
theologians  refer  tJie  decrees  ? 

All  conceivable  divine  actions  may  be  classified  as  follows. 

1st.  Those  actions  which  are  immanent  and  intrinsic,  belong- 
ing essentially  to  the  perfection  of  the  divine  nature,  and  which 
bear  no  reference  whatever  to  any  existence  without  the  God- 
head. These  are  the  acts  of  eternal  and  necessary  generation, 
whereby  the  Son  springs  from  the  Father,  and  of  eternal  and 
necessary  procession,  whereby  the  Spirit  proceeds  from  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  and  all  those  actions  whatsoever  involved 
in  the  mutual  society  of  the  divine  persons. 

2d.  Those  actions  which  are  extrinsic  and  transient,  i.  e.,  those 
free  actions,  proceeding  from  God  and  terminating  upon  the 
creature,  occurring  successively  in  time,  as  God's  acts  in  crea- 
tion, providence,  and  grace. 

3cl.  The  third  class  are  like  the  first,  inasmuch  as  they  are 
intrinsic  and  immanent,  essential  to  the  perfection  of  the  divine 
nature  and  permanent  states  of  the  divine  mind,  but  they  differ, 
on  the  other  hand,  from  the  first  class,  inasmuch  as  they  have 
respect  to  the  whole  dependent  creation  exterior  to  the  God- 
head. These  are  the  eternal  and  immutable  decrees  of  God  re- 
specting all  beings  and  events  whatsoever  exterior  to  himself 


THE    DIFFICULTIES    OF    THE    SUBJECT.  201 

3.  What  is  the  essential  nature  and  source  of  the  difficulties  which 
oppress  tJie  human  reason  when  speculating  on  this  subject? 

These  difficulties  all  have  their  ground  in  the  perfectly  in- 
scrutable relations  of  the  eternal  to  the  temporal,  of  the  infi- 
nite to  the  finite,  of  God's  absolute  sovereignty  to  man's  free 
agency,  and  of  the  unquestionable  fact  of  the  origination  of 
sin  to  the  holiness,  goodness,  wisdom,  and  power  of  God.  They 
are  peculiar  to  no  system  of  theology,  but  press  equally  upon 
any  system  which  acknowledges  the  existence  and  moral  gov- 
ernment of  God,  and  the  moral  agency  of  man.  They  have 
perplexed  heathen  philosophers  of  old,  and  deists  in  modern 
times,  and  Socinians,  Pelagians,  and  Arminians  just  as  sorely 
as  Calvinists. 

4.  From  what  fixed  point  of  view  are  we  to  start  in  the  study 
of  this  subject  ? 

A  self-existent,  independent,  all-perfect,  and  unchangeable 
God,  existing  alone  from  eternity,  began  to  create  the  universe 
physical  and  moral  in  an  absolute  vacuum,  moved  to  do  so 
from  motives  and  with  reference  to  ends,  and  according  to 
ideas  and  plans,  wholely  interior  and  self-prompted.  Also,  if 
God  governs  the  universe,  he  must,  as  an  intelligent  being, 
govern  it  according  to  a  plan ;  and  this  plan  must  be  perfect  in 
its  comprehension,  reaching  to  all  details.  If  he  has  a  plan 
now,  he  must  have  had  the  same  plan  unchanged  from  the  be- 
ginning. The  decree  of  God  therefore  is  the  act  of  an  infinite, 
absolute,  eternal,  unchangeable,  and  sovereign  person,  com- 
prehending a  plan  including  all  his  works  of  all  kinds,  great 
and  small,  from  the  beginning  of  creation  to  an  unending  eter- 
nity. It  must  therefore  be  incomprehensible,  and  it  can  not  be 
conditioned  by  any  thing  exterior  to  God  himself — since  it  was 
matured  before  any  thing  exterior  to  him  existed,  and  hence  it- 
self embraces  and  determines  all  these  supposed  exterior  things 
and  all  the  conditions  of  them  forever. 

5.  What  is  (lie  distinction  between  foreknowledge  and  forecyrdi- 
nation,  and  what  is  the  general  position  of  tine  Sbcinians  on  this 
point  ? 

Foreknowledge  is  an  act  of  the  infinite  intelligence  of  God, 
knowing  from  all  eternity,  without  change,  the  certain  futuri- 
tion  of  all  events  of  every  class  whatsoever  that  ever  will  come 
to  pass. 

Foreordination  is  an  act  of  the  infinitely  intelligent,  fore- 
knowing, righteous,  and  benevolent  will  of  God  from  all  eter- 
nity elder  mining  the  certain  futurition  of  all  events  of  every  class 


202  THE    DECREES    OF    GOD    IN   GENERAL. 

whatsoever  that  come  to  pass.  Foreknowledge  recognizes  the 
certain  futurition  of  events,  while  foreordination  makes  them 
certainly  future. 

Socinians  admit  that  the  foreknowledge  and  the  foreordi- 
nation of  God  are  co-extensive,  but  they  limit  both  to  such 
events  in  creation  and  providence  as  God  has  determined  to 
do  by  his  own  immediate  agency,  or  to  bring  about  through 
the  agency  of  such  second  causes  as  act  under  the  law  of 
necessity.  They  deny  that  God  has  either  foreordained  or 
foreknown  the  voluntary  actions  of  free  agents,  which  from 
their  very  nature  are  contingent,  and  not  objects  of  knowledge 
until  after  their  occurrence. 

6.  What  is  the  position  of  the  Arminians  on  this  subject  ? 

The  Arminians  agree  with  the  Socinians  in  denying  that 
God  foreordains  the  voluntary  acts  of  free  agents,  or  in  any 
way  whatever  determines  them  beforehand  to  be  certainly 
future.  But  they  differ  from  the  Socinians  and  agree  with  us 
in  holding  that  the  certain  foreknowledge  of  God  extends 
equally  to  all  events,  as  well  to  those  in  their  nature  con- 
tingent, as  to  those  produced'  by  second  causes  acting  under 
the  law  of  necessity.  They  hold  that  he  foresees  with  absolute 
certainty  from  all  eternity  the  futurition  of  the  free  actions  of 
moral  agents,  and  that  he  embraces  and  adjusts  them  in  his 
eternal  plan — which  plan  embraces  all  things,  the  free  actions 
of  moral  agents  as  simply  foreseen,  and  the  actions  of  neces- 
sary agents  as  absolutely  foreordained. 

7.  State  under  several  Mads  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  on  this 
subject. 

1st.  God  foreknows  all  events  as  certainly  future  because  he 
has  decreed  them  and  thus  made  them  certainly  future. 

2d.  God's  decree  relates  equally  to  all  future  events  of  every 
kind,  to  the  free  actions  of  moral  agents,  as  well  as  to  action 
of  necessary  agents,  to  sinful  as  well  as  morally  right  actions. 

3d.  Some  things  God  has  eternally  decreed  to  do  himself  im- 
mediately, e.  g.,  creation;  other  things  to  bring  to  pass  through 
the  action  of  second  causes  acting  under  a  law  of  necessity, 
and  again  other  things  he  has  decreed  to  prompt  or  to  permit 
free  agents  to  do  in  the  exercise  of  their  free  agency ;  yet  the 
one  class  of  events  is  rendered  by  the  decree  as  certainly  future 
as  the  other. 

4th.  God  has  decreed  ends  as  well  as  means,  causes  as  well 
as  effects,  conditions  and  instrumentalities  as  well  as  the  events 
which  depend  upon  them. 

5th.  God's  decree  determines  only  the  certain  futurition  of 


STATEMENT    OF  DOCTRINE.  203 

events,  it  directly  effects  or  causes  no  event.  But  the  decree 
itself  provides  in  every  case  that  the  event  shall  be  effected 
by  causes  acting  in  a  manner  perfectly  consistent  with  the 
nature  of  the  event  in  question.  Thus  in  the  case  of  every 
free  act  of  a  moral  agent  the  decree  itself  provides  at  the  same 
time — (a.)  That  the  agent  shall  be  a  free  agent,  (b.)  That  his 
antecedents  and  all  the  antecedents  of  the  act  in  question  shall 
be  what  they  are.  (c.)  That  all  the  present  conditions  of  the 
act  shall  be  what  they  are.  (d.)  That  the  act  shall  be  perfectly 
spontaneous  and  free  on  the  part  of  the  agent,  (e.)  That  it 
shall  be  certainly  future. 

6th.  God's  purposes  relating  to  all  events  of  every  kind 
constitute  one  single,  all-comprehensive  intention  comprehend- 
ing all  events,  the  free  as  free,  the  necessary  as  necessary, 
together  with  all  their  causes,  conditions,  and  relations,  as  one 
indivisible  system  of  things,  every  link  of  which  is  essential  to 
the  integrity  of  the  whole. 

8.  Show  that  as  respects  the  eternal  plan  of  an  omniscient  and 
omnipotent  Creator,  foreknowledge  is  equivalent  to  foreordination. 

God  possessing  infinite  foreknowledge  and  power,  existed 
alone  from  eternity ;  and  in  time,  self-prompted,  began  to  create 
in  an  absolute  vacuum.  Whatever  limiting  causes  or  condi- 
tions afterwards  exist  were  first  intentionally  brought  into 
being  by  himself,  with  perfect  foreknowledge  of  their  nature, 
relations,  and  results.  If  God  then  foreseeing  that  if  he  cre- 
ated a  certain  free  agent  and  placed  him  in  certain  relations  he 
would  freely  act  in  a  certain  way,  and  yet  with  that  knowledge 
proceeded  to  create  that  very  free  agent  and  put  him  in  precisely 
those  positions,  God  would,  in  so  doing,  obviously  predetermine 
the  certain  futurition  of  the  act  foreseen.  God  can  never  in  his 
work  be  reduced  to  a  choice  of  evils,  because  the  entire  system, 
and  each  particular  end  and  cause,  and  condition,  was  clearly 
foreseen  and  by  deliberate  choice  admitted  by  himself. 

9.  What  reasons  may  be  assigned  for  contemplating  the  decrees 
of  God  as  one  aU-compreJiensive  intention  ? 

1st.  Because  as  shown  below  it  is  an  eternal  act,  and  aternitas 
est  una,  individua  et  tota  simul. 

2d.  Because  every  event  that  actually  occurs  in  the  system 
of  things  is  interlaced  with  all  other  events  in  endless  involu- 
tion. No  event  is  isolated.  The  color  of  the  flower  and  the 
nest  of  the  bird  are  related  to  the  whole  material  universe. 
Even  in  our  ignorance  we  can  trace  a  chemical  fact  as  related 
to  myriad  other  facts,  classified  under  the  heads  of  mechanics, 
electricity,  and  light  and  life. 


201        THE    DECREES    OF    GOD    IN   GENERAL. 

3d.  God  decrees  events  as  they  actually  occur,  i  e.,  events 
produced  by  causes,  and  depending  upon  conditions.  The 
decree  that  determines  the  event  can  not  leave  out  the  cause 
or  the  condition  upon  which  it  depends.  But  the  cause  of  one 
event,  is  the  effect  of  another,  and  every  event  in  the  universe 
is  more  immediately  or  remotely  the  condition  of  every  other, 
so  that  an  eternal  purpose  on  the  part  of  God  must  be  one  all- 
comprehensive  act. 

As  our  minds  are  finite,  as  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  embrace 
in  one  act  of  intelligent  comprehension  an  infinite  number  of 
events  in  all  their  several  relations  and  bearings,  we  necessarily 
contemplate  events  in  partial  groups,  and  we  conceive  of  the 
purpose  of  God  relating  to  them  as  distinct  successive  acts. 
Hence  the  Scriptures  speak  of  the  counsels,  the  purposes,  and 
the  judgments  of  God  in  the  plural,  and  in  order  to  indicate 
the  intended  relation  of  one  event  to  another,  they  represent 
God  as  purposing  one  event,  as  the  means  or  condition  upon 
which  another  is  suspended.  This  is  all  true  because  these 
events  do  have  these  relations  to  one  another,  but  they  all 
alike  fall  within,  and  none  remain  without,  that  one  eternal 
design  of  God  which  comprehends  equally  all  causes  and  all 
effects,  all  events  and  all  conditions. 

All  the  speculative  errors  of  men  on  this  subject,  spring  from 
the  tendency  of  the  human  mind  to  confine  attention  to  one 
fragment  of  God's  eternal  purpose,  and  to  regard  it  as  isolated 
from  the  rest.  The  Decree  of  God  separates  no  event  from  its 
causes  or  conditions  any  more  than  we  find  them  separated  in 
nature.  We  are  as  much  unable  to  take  in  by  one  comprehen- 
sive act  of  intelligence  all  the  works  of  God  in  nature  as  we 
are  to  take  in  all  his  decrees.  We  are  forced  to  study  his  works 
part  by  part.  But  no  intelligent  student  of  nature  thinks  that 
any  event  is  isolated.  So  we  are  forced  to  study  his  decrees 
part  by  part,  but  no  intelligent  theologian  should  suppose  that 
there  are  any  broken  links  or  imperfect  connection  either  here 
or  there. 

10.  How  may  it  he  proved  that  the  decrees  of  God  are  eternal  ? 

1st.  As  God  is  infinite,  he  is  necessarily  eternal  and  un- 
changeable, from  eternity  infinite  in  wisdom  and  knowledge, 
and  absolutely  independent  in  thought  and  purpose  of  every 
creature.  There  can  never  be  any  addition  to  his  wisdom,  nor 
surprise  to  his  foreknowledge,  nor  resistance  to  his  power,  and 
therefore  there  never  can  be  any  occasion  to  reverse  or  modify 
that  infinitely  wise  and  righteous  purpose  which,  from  the  per- 
fection of  his  nature,  he  formed  from  eternity. 

2d.  It  is  asserted  in  Scripture. — («V  auZvos)  Acts  xv.  18; 


rROOF   OF  DOCTRINE.  205 

{itpd  uarafioAf/S  xod/iov)  Eph.  i.  4;  1  Pet.  i.  20;  (aV  dpxfji)  2  Thea 
ii.  13;  (itpd  xpoyoov  dioovioov^  2  Tim.  i.  9;  {itpd  t<5v  diooroov}  1  Cor. 
ii.  7;  Eph.  iii.  11,  etc. 

11.  Prove  that  the  decides  are  immutable. 

1st.  This  is  certain  from  the  fact  that  they  are  eternal,  aa 
just  shown. 

2d.  From  the  fact  that  God  is  eternal,  absolute,  immutable, 
and  all-perfect  in  wisdom  and  power. 

3d.  It  is  taught  in  Scripture. — Ps.  xxxiii.  11 ;  Is.  xlvi.  9,  etc. 

12.  Prove  from  reason  that  the  decrees  of  God  comprehend  ah 
events. 

As  shown  above  no  event  is  isolated.  If  one  event  is 
decreed  absolutely  all  events  must  therefore  be  determined 
with  it.  If  one  event  is  left  indeterminate  all  future  events 
will  be  left  in  greater  or  less  degrees  indeterminate  with  it. 

13.  Prove  the  same  from  Smipture. 

1st.  They  affirm  that  the  whole  system  in  general  is  em- 
braced in  the  divine  decrees. — Eph.  i.  11;  Acts  xvii.  26;  Dan. 
iv.  34,  35. 

2d.  They  affirm  the  same  of  fortuitous  events. — Prov.  xvi.  33; 
Matt.  x.  29,  30. 

3d.  Of  the  free  actions  of  men. — Eph.  ii.  10,  11;  Phil.  ii.  13. 

4th.  Even  of  the  wicked  actions  ot  men.  "  Him,  being  de- 
livered by  the  determinate  counsel  and  foreknowledge  of  God, 
ye  have  taken  and  with  wicked  hands  have  crucified  and  slain." 
— Acts  ii.  23.  "  For  of  a  truth  against  thy  Holy  Child  whom 
thou  hast  anointed,  both  Herod  and  Pontius  Pilate,  with  the 
Gentiles  and  the  people  of  Israel  were  gathered  together,  for 
to  do  whatsoever  thy  hand  and  thy  counsel  determined  before- 
hand to  be  done." — Acts  iv.  27,  28;  Acts  xiii.  29;  1  Peter  ii.  8; 
Jude  4;  Rev.  xvii.  17.  As  to  the  history  of  Joseph,  compare 
Gen.  xxxvii.  28  with  Gen.  xlv.  7,  8,  and  1.  20 :  "  So  now  it  was 
not  you  that  sent  me  hither  but  God."  "  But  as  for  you,  ye 
thought  evil  against  me,  but  God  meant  it  unto  good." — See 
also  Ps.  xvii.  13,  14,  and  Is.  x.  5  and  15,  etc. 

14.  Prove  tJte  universality  of  God's  decrees  from  providence. 

It  follows  from  the  eternity,  immutability,  and  infinite  wis- 
dom, foreknowledge,  and  power  of  God,  that  his  temporal  work- 
ing in  providence  must  in  all  things  proceed  according  to  his 
eternal  purpose. — Eph.  i.  11,  and  Acts  xv.  18.  But  both  Script- 
ure and  reason  alike  teach  us  that  the  providential  government 
of  God  comprehends  all  things  in  heaven  and  on  earth  as  a 


20G        THE    DECREES    OF   GOD    IN    GENERAL. 

ivlioh,  and  every  event  in  detail. — Prov.  xvi.  33;  Dan.  iv.  34,  35; 
Matt  x.  29,  30. 

15.  Prove  this  doctrine  from  propJiecy. 

God  has  in  the  Scriptures  foretold  the  certain  occurrence  of 
many  events,  including  the  free  actions  of  men,  which  have 
afterwards  surely  come  to  pass.  Now  the  ground  of  prophecy 
is  foreknowledge,  and  the  foundation  of  the  foreknowledge  of 
an  event  as  certainly  future,  is  God's  decree  that  made  it  future. 
The  eternal  immutability  of  the  decree  is  the  only  foundation  of 
the  infallibility  either  of  the  foreknowledge  or  of  the  prophecy. 
But  if  God  has  decreed  certain  future  events,  he  must  also  have 
included  in  that  decree  all  of  their  causes,  conditions,  co-ordi- 
nates, and  consequences.  No  event  is  isolated;  to  make  one 
certainly  future  implies  the  determination  of  the  whole  conca- 
tenation of  causes  and  effects  which  constitute  the  universe. 

16.  In  what  sense  are  (lie  decrees  of  God  free  ? 

The  decrees  of  God  are  free  in  the  sense  that  in  decreeing 
he  was  solely  actuated  by  his  own  infinitely  wise,  righteous, 
and  benevolent  good  pleasure.  He  has  always  chosen  as  he 
pleased,  and  he  has  always  pleased  consistently  with  the  per- 
fection of  his  nature. 

17.  In  what  sense  are  the  decrees  of  God  sovereign  ? 

They  are  sovereign  in  the  sense  that  while  they  determine 
absolutely  whatever  occurs  without  God,  their  whole  reason 
and  motive  is  within  the  divine  nature,  and  they  are  neither 
suggested  nor  occasioned  by,  nor  conditioned  upon  any  thing 
whatsoever  without  him. 

18.  What  is  the  distinction  between  absolute  and  conditional 
decrees? 

An  absolute  decree  is  one  which,  while  it  may  include  con- 
ditions, is  suspended  upon  no  condition,  i.  e.,  it  makes  the  event 
decreed,  of  whatever  kind,  whether  of  mechanical  necessity  or 
of  voluntary  agency,  certainly  future,  together  with  all  the 
causes  and  conditions,  of  whatever  nature,  upon  which  the 
event  depends. 

A  conditional  decree  is  one  which  decrees  that  an  event 
shall  happen  upon  the  condition  that  some  other  event,  possi- 
ble but  uncertain  (not  decreed),  shall  actually  occur. 

The  Socinians  denied  that  the  free  actions  of  men,  being 
intrinsically  uncertain,  are  the  objects  of  knowledge,  and  there- 
fore affirmed  that  they  are  not  foreknown  by  God.  They  held 
that  God  decreed  absolutely  to  create  the  human  race,  and 


NO    CONDITIONAL   DECREES.  201 

after  Adam  sinned  he  decreed  absolutely  to  save  all  repenting 
and  believing  sinners,  yet  that  he  decreed  nothing  concerning 
the  sinning  nor  the  salvation  of  individual  men. 

The  Arminians,  admitting  that  God  certainly  foreknows  the 
acts  of  free  agents  as  well  as  all  other  events,  maintain  that  he 
absolutely  decreed  to  create  man,  and  foreseeing  that  man 
would  sin  he  absolutely  decreed  to  provide  a  salvation  for  all, 
and  actually  to  save  all  that  repent  and  believe,  but  that  he 
conditionally  decreed  to  save  individual  men  on  the  condition, 
foreseen  but  not  foreordained,  of  their  faith  and  obedience. 

19.  Wlvat  are  tJie  objections  to  attributing  conditional  decrees 
to  God? 

Calvinists  admit  that  the  all-comprehensive  decree  of  God 
determines  all  events  according  to  their  inherent  nature,  the 
actions  of  free  agents  as  free,  and  the  operation  of  necessary 
causes,  necessarily.  It  also  comprehends  the  whole  system  of 
causes  and  effects  of  every  kind ;  of  the  motives  and  conditions 
of  free  actions,  as  well  as  the  necessary  causes  of  necessary 
events.  God  decreed  salvation  upon  the  condition  of  faith, 
yet  in  the  very  same  act  he  decreed  the  faith  of  those  persona 
whose  salvation  he  has  determined.  "  Whom  he  did  predesti- 
nate, them  he  also  called."  Thus  his  decree  from  the  beginning 
embraced  and  provided  for  the  free  agency  of  man,  as  well  as 
the  regular  procedures  of  nature,  according  to  established  laws. 
Thus  also  his  covenants,  or  conditional  promises,  which  he 
makes  in  time,  are  in  all  their  parts  the  execution  of  his  eter- 
nal purpose,  which  comprehended  the  promise,  and  the  con- 
dition in  their  several  places  as  means  to  the  end.  But  that 
the  decree  of  God  can  be  regarded  as  suspended  upon  condi- 
tions which  are  not  themselves  determined  by  the  decree  is 
evidently  impossible. 

1st.  This  decree  has  been  shown  above  (Questions  3-7)  to 
be  eternal  and  all-comprehensive.  A  condition  implies  liability 
to  change.  The  whole  universe  forming  one  system,  if  one  part 
is  contingent  the  whole  must  be  contingent,  for  if  one  condi- 
tion failed  the  whole  concatenation  of  causes  and  effects  would 
be  deranged.  If  the  Arminian  should  rejoin  that  although  God 
did  not  foreordain  the  free  acts  of  men,  yet  he  infallibly  fore- 
knew and  provided  for  them,  and  therefore  his  plans  can  not 
fail ;  then  the  Calvinist  replies  that  if  God  foresaw  that  a  given 
man,  in  given  circumstances,  would  act  at  a  given  juncture  in 
a  certain  way,  then  God  in  decreeing  to  create  that  very  man 
and  place  him  in  those  very  circumstances,  at  that  very  junc- 
ture, did  foreordain  the  certain  futurition  of  that  very  event, 
and  of  all  its  consequences.    That  God's  decree  is  immutable  and 


208        THE    DECREES    OF   GOD    IN   GENERAL. 

does  not  depend  upon  uncertain  conditions,  is  proved  (1)  from 
its  eternity,  (2)  from  the  direct  assertions  of  Scripture. — Isa. 
xiv.  24,  27;  xlvi.  10;  Ps.  xxxiii.  11;  Prov.  xix.  21;  Rom.  ix.  11; 
Eph.  iii.  11. 

2d.  The  foreknowledge  of  God,  as  Arminians  admit,  is  eter- 
nal and  certain,  and  embraces  all  events,  free  as  well  as  neces- 
sary. But,  (1)  as  shown  in  the  preceding  paragraph,  this 
foreknowledge  involves  foreordination,  and  (2)  certainty  in 
the  foreknowledge  implies  certainty  in  the  event;  certainty 
implies  determination;  determination  leaves  us  to  choose  be- 
tween the  decree  of  an  infinitely  wise,  righteous,  and  benevo- 
lent God,  and  a  blind  fate. 

3d.  A  conditional  decree  would  subvert  the  sovereignty  of 
God  and  make  him,  as  to  the  administration  of  his  whole  gov- 
ernment and  the  execution  of  all  his  plans,  dependent  upon  the 
uncontrollable  actions  of  his  own  creatures.  But  the  decrees  of 
God  are  sovereign. — Isa.  xl.  13,  14;  Dan.  iv.  35;  Rom.  ix.  15-18. 

4th.  His  decree  is  declared  to  depend  upon  his  own  "  good 
pleasure,"  and  the  "counsel  of  his  own  will." — Eph.  i.  5,  11; 
Rom.  ix.  11 ;  Matt.  xi.  25,  26. 

5th.  The  decree  of  God  includes  the  means  and  conditions. 
2  Thess.  ii.  13;  1  Pet.  i.  2;  Eph.  i.  4. 

6th.  His  decree  absolutely  determines  the  free  actions  of 
men. — Acts  iv.  27,  28 ;  Eph.  ii.  10. 

7th.  God  himself  works  in  his  people  that  faith  and  obedi- 
ence which  are  called  the  conditions  of  their  salvation. — Phil, 
ii.  13;  Eph.  ii.  8;  2  Tim.  ii.  25. 

20.  How  far  are  tJie  decrees  of  God  efficacious  and  hoiv  far 
'permissive  ? 

All  the  decrees  of  God  are  equally  efficacious  in  the  sense 
that  they  all  infallibly  determine  the  certain  futurition  of  the 
event  decreed.  Theologians,  however,  classify  the  decrees  of 
God  thus:  1st.  As  efficacious  in  as  far  as  they  respect  those 
events  which  he  has  determined  to  effect  through  necessary 
causes,  or  in  his  own  immediate  agency.  2d.  As  permissive, 
as  far  as  they  respect  those  events  which  he  has  determined 
to  allow  dependent  free  agents  to  effect. 

21.  How  may  it  be  proved  that  the  decree  of  God  renders  the 
event  certain? 

1st.  From  the  nature  of  the  decree  itself  as  sovereign  and 
unchangeable  (see  above). 

2d.  From  the  essential  nature  of  God  in  his  relation  to  his 
creation,  as  an  infinitely  wise  and  powerful  sovereign. 

3d.  The  foreknowledge  of  God  regards  future  events  as  cer- 


DIFFERS   FROM  DOCTRINE    OF  FATE.  209 

tain.     The  ground  of  this  certainty  must  be  either  in  God,  or 
in  the  events  themselves,  which  last  is  fatalism. 

4th.  The  Scriptures  ascribe  a  certainty  of  futurition  to  the 
events  decreed.  There  is  a  needs-be  that  the  event  should 
happen  "as  it  was  determined." — Luke  xviii.  31-33;  xxiv.  46; 
Acts  ii.  23;  xiii.  29;  1  Cor.  xi.  19;  Matt.  xvi.  21. 

22.  How  does  this  doctrine,  that  God's  universal  decree  renders 
the  occurrence  of  all  future  events  certain,  differ  from  the  ancient 
doctrine  offuith  ? 

The  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  Decrees  agrees  with  Fatalism 
only  at  one  point,  i.  e.,  in  maintaining  that  the  events  in  ques- 
tion are  certainly  future.  But  the  Arminian  doctrine  of  divine 
foreknowledge  does  precisely  the  same  thing.  In  every  other 
point  our  doctrine  differs  from  the  heathen  doctrine  of  Fate. 

Fatalism  supposes  all  events  to  be  certainly  determined  by  a 
universal  law  of  necessary  causation,  acting  blindly  and  by  a 
simple  unintelligent  force  effecting  its  end  irresistibly  and  irre- 
spective of  the  free  wills  of  the  free  agents  involved.  There 
was  no  room  left  for  final  ends  or  purposes,  no  place  for  motive 
or  choice,  no  means  or  conditions,  but  a  simple  evolution  of 
necessity. 

On  the  other  hand  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  Decrees  postu- 
lates the  infinite  all-comprehensive  plan  of  an  infinitely  wise, 
righteous,  powerful,  and  benevolent  Father,  whose  plan  is  de- 
termined not  by  mere  will,  but  according  to  the  "  counsel  of  his 
wilL,"  securing  the  best  ends,  and  adopting  the  best  means  in 
order  to  attain  those  ends — and  whose  plan  is  not  executed  by 
mere  force,  but  through  the  instrumentality  of  all  classes  of 
second  causes,  free  as  well  as  necessary,  each  pre-adapted  to  its 
place  and  function,  and  each  acting  without  constraint  accord- 
ing to  its  nature. 

There  is  an  infinite  difference  between  a  machine  and  a  man, 
between  the  operation  of  motives,  intelligence,  free  choice,  and 
the  mechanical  forces  which  act  upon  matter.  There  is  pre- 
cisely the  same  difference  between  the  system  of  divine  decrees, 
and  the  heathen  doctrine  of  fate. 

23.  What  objection  to  this  doctrine  of  unconditional  decrees  is 
derived  from  the  admitted  fact  of  man's  free  agency  ? 

Objection.  —  Foreknowledge  implies  the  certainty  of  the 
event.  The  decree  of  God  implies  that  he  has  determined  it 
to  be  certain.  But  that  he  has  determined  it  to  be  certain 
implies,  upon  the  part  of  God,  an  efficient  agency  in  bringing 
about  that  event  which  is  inconsistent  with  the  free  agency 
of  man 


210        THE    DECREES    OF   GOD   IN   GENERAL. 

We  answer:  It  is  evidently  only  the  execution  of  the  decree, 
and  not  the  decree  itself,  which  can  interfere  with  the  free 
agency  of  man.  On  the  general  subject  of  the  method  in 
which  God  executes  his  decrees,  see  below,  the  chapters  on 
Providence,  Effectual  Calling,  and  Kegeneration. 

We  have  here  room  only  for  the  following  general  statement : 

1st.  The  Scriptures  attribute  all  that  is  good  in  man  to  God; 
these  "  he  works  in  us  both  to  will  and  to  do  of  his  good  pleas- 
ure." All  the  sins  which  men  commit  the  Scriptures  attribute 
wholly  to  the  man  himself.  Yet  God's  permissive  decree  does 
truly  determine  the  certain  futurition  of  the  act;  because  God 
knowing  certainly  that  the  man  in  question  would  in  the  given 
circumstances  so  act,  did  place  that  very  man  in  precisely  those 
circumstances  that  he  should  so  act.  But  in  neither  case, 
whether  in  working  the  good  in  us,  or  in  placing  us  where  we 
will  certainly  do  the  wrong,  does  God  in  executing  his  purpose 
ever  violate  or  restrict  the  perfect  freedom  of  the  agent. 

2d.  We  have  the  fact  distinctly  revealed  that  God  has  de- 
creed the  free  acts  of  men,  and  yet  that  the  actors  were  none 
the  less  responsible,  and  consequently  none  the  less  free  in  their 
acts.— Acts  ii.  23;  iii.  18;  iv.  27,  28;  Gen.  1.  20,  etc.  We  never 
can  understand  how  the  infinite  God  acts  upon  the  finite  spirit 
of  man,  but  it  is  none  the  less  our  duty  to  believe. 

3d.  According  to  that  theory  of  the  will  which  makes  the 
freedom  of  man  to  consist  in  the  liberty  of  indifference,  i.  e.,  that 
the  will  acts  in  every  case  of  choice  in  a  state  of  perfect  equi- 
librium equally  independent  of  all  motives  for  or  against,  and 
just  as  free  to  choose  in  opposition  to  all  desires  as  in  harmony 
with  them,  it  is  evident  that  the  veiy  essence  of  liberty  consists 
in  uncertainty.  If  this  be  the  true  theory  of  the  will,  God  could 
not  execute  his  decrees  without  violating  the  liberty  of  the 
agent,  and  certain  foreknowledge  would  be  impossible. 

But  as  shown  below,  in  Chapter  XV.,  the  true  theory  of 
the  will  is  that  the  liberty  of  the  agent  consists  in  his  acting 
in  each  case  as,  upon  the  whole,  he  pleases,  i.  e.,  according  to 
the  dispositions  and  desires  of  his  heart,  under  the  immediate 
view  which  his  reason  takes  of  the  case.  These  dispositions 
and  desires  are  determined  in  their  turn  by  the  character  of 
the  agent  in  relation  to  his  circumstances,  which  character 
and  circumstances  are  surely  not  beyond  the  control  of  the 
infinite  God. 

24.  What  is  meant  by  those  who  teach  that  God  is  the  author 
of  sin? 

Many  reasoners  of  a  Pantheistic  tendency,  e.  g.,  Dr.  Emmons, 
maintain  that  as  God  is  infinite  in  sovereignty,  and  by  his  de- 


DOES  NOT  MAKE    GOD    THE  AUTHOR    OF  SIN.  211 

cree  determines,  so  by  his  providence  he  effects  every  thing 
which  comes  to  pass,  so  that  he  is  actually  the  only  real  agent 
in  the  universe.  Still  they  religiously  hold  that  God  is  an  in- 
finitely holy  agent  in  effecting  that  which,  produced/rom  God, 
is  righteous,  but,  produced  in  us,  is  sin. 

25.  Hoio  may  it  be  shoivn  that  God  is  not  the  author  of  sin  ? 

The  admission  of  sin  into  the  creation  of  an  infinitely  wise, 
powerful,  and  holy  God  is  a  great  mystery,  of  which  no  explana- 
tion can  be  given.  But  that  God  can  not  be  the  author  of  sin 
is  proved — 

1st.  From  the  nature  of  sin,  which  is,  as  to  its  essence, 
avoixia,  want  of  conformity  to  law,  and  disobedience  to  the 
Lawgiver. 

2d.  From  the  nature  of  God,  who  is  as  to  essence  holy,  and 
in  the  administration  of  his  kingdom  always  forbids  and  pun- 
ishes sin. 

3d.  From  the  nature  of  man,  who  is  a  responsible  free  agent 
who  originates  his  own  acts.  The  Scriptures  always  attribute 
to  divine  grace  the  good  actions,  and  to  the  evil  heart  the 
sinful  actions  of  men. 

26.  How  may  it  be  shoivn  that  the  doctrine  of  unconditional 
decrees  does  not  represent  God  as  the  autlwr  of  sin  ? 

The  whole  difficulty  lies  in  the  awful  fact  that  sin  exists. 
If  God  foresaw  it  and  yet  created  the  agent,  and  placed  him  in 
the  very  circumstances  under  which  he  did  foresee  the  sin  would 
be  committed,  then  he  did  predetermine  it.  If  he  did  not  fore- 
see it,  or,  foreseeing  it,  could  not  prevent  it,  then  he  is  not 
infinite  in  knowledge  and  in  power,  but  is  surprised  and  pre- 
vented by  his  creatures.  The  doctrine  of  unconditional  decrees 
presents  no  special  difficulty.  It  represents  God  as  decreeing 
that  the  sin  shall  eventuate  as  the  free  act  of  the  sinner,  and 
not  as  by  any  form  of  co-action  causing,  nor  by  any  form  of 
temptation  inducing,  him  to  sin. 

27.  Wliat  is  the  objection  to  this  doctrine  derived  from  the  use 
of  means? 

This  is  the  most  common  form  of  objection  in  the  mouths 
of  ignorant  and  irreligious  people.  If  an  immutable  decree 
makes  all  future  events  certain,  "if  what  is  to  be,  will  be"  then 
it  follows  that  no  means  upon  our  part  can  avoid  the  result, 
nor  can  any  means  be  necessary  to  secure  it. 

Hence  as  the  use  of  means  is  commanded  by  God,  and 
instinctively  natural  to  man,  since  many  events  have  been 
effected  by  their  use,  and  many  more  in  the  future  evidently 


212        THE    DECREES    OF   GOD    IN   GENERAL. 

depend  upon  them,  it  follows  that  God  has  not  rendered  certain 
any  of  those  events  which  depend  upon  the  use  of  means  on 
the  part  of  men. 

28.  What  is  tine,  ground  upon  which  the  use  of  means  is  founded  ? 

This  use  is  founded  upon  the  command  of  God,  and  upon 
that  fitness  in  the  means  to  secure  the  end  desired,  which  our 
instincts,  our  intelligence,  and  our  experience  disclose  to  us. 
But  neither  the  fitness  nor  the  efficiency  of  the  means  to  se- 
cure the  end,  reside  inherently  and  independently  in  the  means 
themselves,  but  were  originally  established  and  are  now  sus- 
tained by  God  himself;  and  in  the  working  of  all  means  God 
always  presides  and  directs  providentially.  This  is  necessarily 
involved  in  any  Christian  theory  of  Providence,  although  we 
can  never  explicate  the  relative  action  {concur  sus)  of  God  on 
man,  the  infinite  upon  the  finite. 

29.  How  may  it  he  shown  that  the  doctrine  of  decrees  does  not 
afford  a  rational  ground  of  discouragement  in  the  use  of  means  ? 

This  difficulty  (stated  above,  Question  27)  rests  entirely  in 
a  habit  of  isolating  one  part  of  God's  eternal  decree  from  the 
whole  (see  Question  7),  and  in  confounding  the  Christian  doc- 
trine of  decrees  with  the  heathen  doctrine  of  fate  (see  Ques.  22.) 
But  when  God  decreed  an  event  he  made  it  certainly  future, 
not  as  isolated  from  other  events,  or  as  independent  of  all 
means  and  agents,  but  as  dependent  upon  means  and  upon 
agents  freely  using  those  means.  The  same  decree  which 
makes  the  event  certain,  also  determines  the  mode  by  which 
it  shall  be  effected,  and  comprehends  the  means  with  the 
ends.  This  eternal,  all-comprehensive  act  embraces  all  exist- 
ence through  all  duration,  and  all  space  as  one  system,  and 
at  once  provides  for  the  whole  in  all  its  parts,  and  for  all  the 
parts  in  all  their  relations  to  one  another  and  to  the  whole. 
An  event,  therefore,  may  be  certain  in  respect  to  God's  decree 
and  foreknowledge,  and  at  the  same  time  truly  contingent  in 
the  apprehension  of  man,  and  in  its  relation  to  the  means  upon 
which  it  depends. 

30.  What  are  the  distinctions  to  be  borne  in  mind  between  the 
objections  to  the  proof  of  a  doctrine,  and  objections  to  the  doctrine 
when  proved  ? 

Reasonable  objections  to  the  evidence,  Scriptural  or  other- 
wise, upon  which  the  claims  of  any  doctrine  is  based,  are  evi- 
dently legitimate.  These  objections  against  the  proof  estab- 
lishing the  truth  of  the  doctrine  ought  always  to  be  allowed 
their  full  weight.     But  when  once  the  doctrine  has  been  proved 


PRACTICAL    EFFECTS    OF   THE   DOCTRINE.  213 

to  be  taught  in  Scripture  objections  levelled  against  it,  obviously 
have  no  weight  at  all  until  they  amount  to  a  sufficient  force  to 
prove  that  the  Scriptures  themselves  are  not  the  word  of  God. 
Before  they  reach  that  measure,  objections  levelled  against  the 
doctrine  itself,  which  do  not  affect  the  evidence  upon  which  it 
rests  (and  most  of  the  objections  to  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of 
Decrees  are  of  this  order)  only  illustrate  the  obvious  truth  that 
the  finite  mind  of  man  can  not  fully  comprehend  the  matters 
partially  revealed  and  partially  concealed  in  the  word  of  God. 

31.  What  are  the  proper  practical  effects  of  this  doctrine  ? 

Humility,  in  view  of  the  infinite  greatness  and  sovereignty 
of  God,  and  of  the  dependence  of  man.  Confidence  and  im- 
plicit reliance  upon  the  wisdom,  righteousness,  goodness,  and 
immutability  of  God's  purposes,  and  cheerful  obedience  to  his 
commandments;  always  remembering  that  God's  precepts,  as 
distinctly  revealed,  and  not  his  decrees,  are  the  rule  of  our 
duty. 


CHAPTER    XL 

PREDESTINATION. 

1.  What  are  the  different  senses  in  which  the  word  predestina- 
tion is  tised  by  theologians  ? 

1st.  As  equivalent  to  the  generic  word  decree,  as  including 
all  God's  eternal  purposes. 

2d.  As  embracing  only  those  purposes  of  God  which  spe 
cially  respect  his  moral  creatures. 

3d.  As  designating  only  the  counsel  of  God  concerning 
fallen  men,  including  the  sovereign  election  of  some  and  the 
most  righteous  reprobation  of  the  rest. 

4th.  It  is  sometimes  restricted  in  the  range  of  its  usage  so 
far  as  to  be  applied  only  to  the  eternal  election  of  God's  people 
to  everlasting  life. 

The  sense  marked  as  3d,  above,  is  the  most  proper  usage. — 
See  Acts  iv.  27,  28. 

2.  In  ivhat  senses  are  the  words  TtpoyirwtiKoo  (to  know  before- 
hand), and  7tp6yvGD6iz  {foreknowledge),  used  in  the  Neio  Testament? 

IIpoyivo6dMco  is  compounded  of  %p6,  before,  and  yivoodxca,  of 
which  the  primary  sense  is  to  knoiv,  and  the  secondary  sense  to 
approve,  e.  g.,  2  Tim.  ii.  19;  John  x.  14,  15;  Rom.  vii.  15.  This 
word  occurs  five  times  in  the  New  Testament.  Twice,  e.  g., 
Acts  xxvi.  5  and  2  Pet.  iii.  17,  it  signifies  previous  knowledge, 
apprehension,  simply.  In  the  remaining  three  instances,  Rom. 
vni.  29 ;  xi.  2 ;  1  Pet.  i.  20,  it  is  used  in  the  secondary  sense  of 
approve  beforehand.  This  is  made  evident  from  the  context, 
for  it  is  used  to  designate  the  ground  of  God's  predestination 
of  individuals  to  salvation,  which  elsewhere  is  expressly  said 
to  be  "  not  according  to  our  works,  but  according  to  his  own 
purpose  and  grace,"  and  "to  the  good  pleasure  of  his  will," 
2  Tim.  i.  9;  Rom.  ix.  11;  Eph.  i.  5. 

IJpoyvGodii  occurs  but  twice  in  the  New  Testament,  e.  g., 
Acts  ii.  23  and  1  Pet.  i.  2,  in  both  of  which  instances  it  evi- 
dently signifies  approbation,  or  choice  from  beforehand.  It  is 
explained  by  the  equivalent  phrase  "  determinate  counsel." 


NATIONAL    ELECTION.  215 

3.  What  is  tlie  New  Testament  usage  of  the  words  kxXeyoo  (to 
elect)  and  inXoyij  {election)  ? 

'ExXeyoo  occurs  twenty-one  times  in  the  New  Testament. 
It  is  used  to  signify,  1st,  Christ's  choice  of  men  to  be  apostles. 
Luke  vi.  13;  John  vi.  70.  2d.  God's  choice  of  the  Jewish 
nation  as  a  peculiar  people. — Acts  xiii.  17.  3d.  The  choice  of 
men  by  God,  or  by  the  church,  for  some  special  service. — Acts 
xv.  7,  22.  4th.  The  choice  made  by  Mary  of  the  better  part. 
Luke  x.  42.  5th.  In  the  great  majority  of  instances  God's  eter 
nal  election  of  individual  men  to  everlasting  life. — John  xv.  16; 
1  Cor.  i.  27,  28;  Eph.  i.  4;  James  ii.  5. 

'EnXoyrf  occurs  seven  times  in  the  New  Testament.  Once  it 
signifies  an  election  to  the  apostolic  office. — Acts  ix.  15.  Once 
it  signifies  those  chosen  to  eternal  life. — Rom.  xi.  7.  In  every 
other  case  it  signifies  the  purpose  or  the  act  of  God  in  choosing 
his  own  people  to  salvation. — Rom.  ix.  11 ;  xi.  5,  28 ;  1  Thess. 
i.  4;  2  Pet.  i.  10. 

4.  What  oilier  words  are  used  by  the  Holy  Glwst  in  the  New 
Testament  to  set  forth  the  truth  on  this  subject  ? 

LTpoopi&iv  occurs  six  times  in  the  New  Testament. — Acta 
iv.  28;  Rom.  viii.  29,  30;  1  Cor.  ii.  7,  and  Eph.  i.  5,  11.  In 
every  case  it  signifies  the  absolute  predestination  of  God. 

LTporiO^/u  occurs  three  times  in  the  New  Testament.  In 
Rom.  i.  13  it  signifies  a  purpose  of  Paul,  and  in  Rom.  hi.  25 
and  Eph.  i.  9,  a  purpose  of  God. 

LTpoeroijucc&iv  occurs  twice,  Rom.  ix.  23  and  Eph.  ii.  10,  pre- 
pare or  appoint  beforehand. 

5.  To  wJiom  is  election  referred  in  the  Scriptures  ? 

The  eternal  decree,  as  a  whole,  and  in  all  its  parts,  is  doubt- 
less the  concurrent  act  of  all  the  three  persons  of  the  Trinity, 
in  their  perfect  oneness  of  counsel  and  will. 

But  in  the  economy  of  salvation,  as  revealed  to  us,  the  act 
of  sovereign  election  is  specially  attributed  to  the  Father,  as 
his  personal  part,  even  as  redemption  is  attributed  to  the  Son, 
and  sanctification  to  the  Spirit. — John  xvii.  6,  9;  vi.  64,  65; 
1  Thess.  v.  9. 

6.  State  that  theory  of  Predestination  designated  by  its  advo- 
cates the  "  Theory  of  National  Election." 

This  is  the  theory  that  the  only  election  spoken  of  in  the 
Bible  concerning  the  salvation  of  men  consists  of  the  divine  pre- 
destination of  communities  and  nations  to  the  knowledge  of  the 
true  religion  and  the  external  privileges  of  the  gospel.     This 


1216  PREDESTINATION. 

form  of  election,  which  undoubtedly  represents  a  great  gospel 
fact,  is  eminently  illustrated  in  the  case  of  the  Jews.  This  is 
the  view  advocated  by  Archbishop  Sumner  in  his  work  on 
"Apostolic  Preaching,"  quoted  by  Dr.  Cunningham. 

7.  State  the  tlieory  styled  by  its  advocates  the  "Theory  of  Ecdesi* 
astical  Individualism." 

The  view  advocated  by  Mr.  Stanley  Faber  in  his  "  Primi- 
tive Doctrine  of  Election,"  and  by  Archbishop  Whately  in  his 
"Essays  on  some  of  the  Difficulties  in  the  Writings  of  the 
Apostle  Paul,"  and  others,  is  styled  the  doctrine  of  "  Ecclesias- 
tical Individualism,"  and  it  involves  the  affirmation  that  God 
predetermines  the  relation  of  individual  men  to  the  outward 
church  and  the  means  of  grace.  Thus  by  birth  and  subsequent 
providences  he  casts  the  lot  of  some  men  in  the  most  favorable, 
and  of  others  in  the  least  favorable  circumstances. 

8.  What  is  the  Arminian  doctrine  of  election  ? 

The  Arminians  admit  the  foreknowledge  of  God,  but  they 
deny  his  absolute  foreordination  as  it  relates  to  the  salvation 
of  individuals.  Their  distinguishing  doctrine  is  that  God  did 
not  eternally  make  choice  of  certain  persons  and  ordain  their 
salvation,  but  that  he  made  choice  of  certain  characters,  as  holi- 
ness and  faith  and  perseverance;  or  of  certain  classes  of  men 
who  possess  those  characters,  e.  g.,  believers  who  persevere 
unto  the  end. 

Since  they  admit  that  God  foreknows  from  eternity  with 
absolute  certainty  precisely  what  individuals  will  repent  and 
believe  and  persevere  therein  to  the  end,  it  follows  that  their 
doctrine  admits  of  the  statement  that  God  eternally  predesti- 
nated certain  persons,  who  he  foresaw  would  repent  and  be- 
lieve and  persevere  to  life  and  salvation,  on  the  ground  of  that 
faith  and  perseverance  thus  foreseen. 

9.  Point  out  tlie  several  principles  in  which  tJie  above-mentioned 
vieius  agree  and  wherein  they  differ. 

The  theories  of  "National  Election"  and  of  "Ecclesiastical 
Individualism,"  both  teach  universally  admitted  facts,  namely 
that  God  does  predestinate  individuals  and  communities  and 
nations  to  the  external  privileges  of  the  gospel  and  the  use  of 
the  means  of  grace.  This  neither  any  Arminian  nor  any  Cal- 
vinist  will  deny.  But  these  theories  are  both  vicious  and  both 
identical  with  the  Arminian  theory,  in  that  they  deny  that  God 
unconditionally  predestinates  either  the  free  actions  or  the  ulti- 
mate salvation  of  individuals.     They  admit  that  he  gives  cep 


DIFFERENT   THEORIES    CONTRASTED.  217 

tain  men  a  better  chance  than  others,  but  hold  that  each  man's 
ultimate  fate  is  not  determined  by  God's  decree,  but  left  de- 

f>endent  upon  the  free  wills  of  the  men  themselves.  Neverthe- 
ess,  while  these  theories  are  all  consistently  Arminian  in  fun- 
damental principle,  yet  they  differ  in  the  manner  in  which 
they  attempt  to  bring  the  Scriptures  concerned  into  harmony 
with  that  system.  These  theories  differ  among  themselves  as 
to  the  objects,  the  ends,  and  the  grounds  of  this  election.  As  to 
the  objects  of  the  election  spoken  of  in  Scripture,  the  Armin- 
ian, the  Calvinistic,  and  "Ecclesiastical  Individualism"  theories 
agree  in  making  them  individuals.  The  theory  of  "  National 
Election  "  makes  them  nations  or  communities.  As  to  the  end 
of  this  election  the  Calvinistic  and  Arminian  theories  make  it 
the  eternal  salvation  of  the  individuals  elected.  The  theories 
of  "National  Election"  and  of  "Ecclesiastical  Individualism" 
make  it  admission  to  the  privilege  of  the  means  of  grace.  As 
to  the  ground  of  this  election  spoken  of  in  the  Scripture,  ad- 
vocates of  the  Calvinistic,  the  "National  Election,"  and  the  I 
"  Ecclesiastical  Individualism  "  theories  agree  in  making  it  the 
sovereign  good  pleasure  of  God,  while  the  Arminians  hold  it 
is  conditioned  upon  the  faith,  repentance,  and  perseverance 
certainly  foreseen  in  each  individual  case. 

It  is  obvious  that  the  Calvinistic  Doctrine  of  Decrees  in- 
cludes the  absolute  election  of  both  individuals  and  of  commu- 
nities and  nations  to  the  use  of  the  means  of  grace  and  the 
external  advantages  of  the  Church.  It  is  also  obvious  that 
the  admission  of  the  principle  of  absolute  election,  as  far  as 
this,  must  be  made  by  all  Arminians  as  well  as  Calvinists, 
and  hence  this  admission  alone  does  not  discriminate  between 
the  two  great  contesting  systems.  The  only  question  which 
touches  the  true  matter  in  debate  is,  What  is  the  ground  of  the  i 
eternal  predestination  of  individuals  to  salvation?  Is  it  thel 
foreseen  faith  and  repentance  of  the  individuals  themselves,  | 
or  the  sovereign  good  pleasure  of  God  ?  Every  Christian  must 
take  one  side  or  the  other  of  this  question.  If  he  takes  the 
side  which  makes  foreseen  faith  the  ground,  he  is  an  Arminian 
no  matter  what  else  he  holds.  If  he  takes  the  side  which 
makes  the  good  pleasure  of  God  the  ground,  he  is  a  Calvinist 

This  division  among  themselves,  and  this  alternate  agree- 
ment with  and  difference  from  the  Calvinistic  positions  on  this 
subject,  is  a  very  suggestive  illustration  of  the  extreme  diffi- 
culty the  advocates  of  Arminian  principles  have  in  accommo- 
dating the  words  of  Scripture  to  tneir  doctrine. 

In  a  polemic  point  of  view  the  Calvinists  have  the  capital 
advantage  of  being  able  to  divide  their  opponents,  and  to  refute 
them  in  detail. 


218        '  PREDESTINATION. 

10.  State  tJie  three  points  involved  in  the  Calvinistic  loctrine  on 
this  subject. 

Calvinists  hold,  as  shown  in  the  preceding  chapter,  that 
God's  Decrees  are  absolute  and  relate  to  all  classes  of  events 
whatsoever.  They  therefore  maintain  that  while  nations,  com- 
munities, and  individuals  are  predestined  absolutely  to  all  of 
every  kind  of  good  and  bad  that  befalls  them,  nevertheless  the 
Scriptures  teach  specifically  an  election  (1)  of  individuals,  (2)  to 
grace  and  salvation,  (3)  founded  not  upon  the  foreseen  faith  of 
the  persons  elected,  but  upon  the  sovereign  good  pleasure  of 
God  alone. 

11.  State  the  Presumption  of  the  truth  of  the  above  arising  from 
the  fact  that  impartial  infidel  and  rationalistic  interpreters  admit 
that  tJie  letter  of  tJie  Scriptures  can  be  interpreted  only  in  a  Cal- 
vinistic sense. 

Besides  the  presumption  in  favor  of  Calvinism  arising  from 
the  fact  above  stated,  that  anti-Calvinistic  interpreters  of  the 
Scripture  are  reduced  to  all  kinds  of  various  hypotheses  in  order 
to  avoid  the  obvious  force  of  the  Scriptural  testimony  upon  the 
subject,  we  now  cite  the  additional  presumption,  arising  from 
the  fact  that  rationalists  and  infidels  generally,  who  agree  with 
Arminians  in  their  intense  opposition  to  Calvinistic  Principles, 
yet  not  being  restrained  by  faith  in  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible, 
are  frank  enough  to  confess  that  the  Book  can  be  fairly  inter- 
preted only  in  a  Calvinistic  sense.  This  is  thus  the  impartial 
testimony  of  an  enemy.  Wegscheider  in  his  uInstitutiones  The- 
ologice  Christians,  Dogmatics?  Pt.  III.,  Ch.  hi.,  §  145,*  the  high- 
est authority  as  to  the  results  of  German  Rationalists  in  Dog- 
matic theology,  says  that  the  passages  in  question  do  teach 
Calvinistic  doctrine,  but  that  Paul  was  misled  by  the  crude 
and  erroneous  notions  prevalent  in  that  age,  and  especially  by 
the  narrow  spirit  of  Jewish  particularism.  See  also  Gibbon's 
"Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire,"  Chapter  xxxiii., 
Note  31.  —  "Perhaps  a  reasoner  still  more  independent  may 
smile  in  his  turn,  when  he  peruses  an  Arminian  Commentary 
on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans." 

12.  Prove  from  Scripture  that  the  subjects  of  election  are  indi- 
viduals and  that  the  end  of  election  is  eternal  life. 

1st.  They  are  always  spoken  of  as  individuals,  and  the  elec- 
tion of  which  they  are  the  subjects  is  always  set  forth  as  having 
grace  or  glory  as  its  end. — Acts  xiii.  48 ;  Eph.  i.  4 ;  2  Thess.  ii.  13. 
2d.  The  elect  are  in  Scripture  explicitly  ciistinguished  from  the 

*  Dr.  Win.  Cunningham,  "Hist.  Tlieo.,"  Vol.  II.,  p.  4G3. 


THE   DOCTRINE   PROVED.  219 

mass  of  the  visible  Church,  and  hence  their  election  could  not 
have  been  merely  to  the  external  privileges  of  that  Church. — 
Rom.  xi.  7.  3d.  The  names  of  the  elect  are  said  "  to  be  written 
in  heaven"  and  to  be  in  "the  book  of  life." — Heb.  xii.  23; 
Phil.  iv.  3.  4th.  The  blessings  which  it  is  explicitly  declared 
are  secured  by  this  election  are  gracious  and  saving,  they  are 
the  elements  and  results  of  salvation,  inseparable  from  it,  and 
pertain  not  to  nations  but  to  individuals  as  their  subjects,  e.  g., 
"adoption  of  sons,"  "to  be  conformed  to  the  image  of  his  Son," 
etc. — Rom.  viii.  29;  Eph.  i.  5;  2  Thess.  ii.  13;  1  Thess.  v.  9; 
Rom.  ix.  15,  16. 

13.  Show  that  this  election  is  not  founded  on  works  whether 
foreseen  or  not. 

This  follows — 1st.  From  the  general  doctrine  of  Decrees 
which  has  been  established  in  the  last  chapter.  If  God's 
decrees  relate  to  and  determine  all  events  of  every  class,  it 
follows  that  no  undecreed  events  remain  to  condition  his  de- 
cree or  any  element  thereof,  and  also  that  he  has  decreed  faith 
and  repentance  as  well  as  the  salvation  which  is  conditioned 
upon  them. 

2d.  It  is  expressly  declared  in  Scripture  that  this  election  ia 
not  conditioned  upon  works  of  any  kind. — Rom.  xi.  4-7 ;  2  Tim. 
L  9;  Rom.  ix.  11. 

14.  Shoiv  that  in  Scripture  it  is  habitually  declared  to  be  founded 
on  "the  good  pleasure  of  God,"  and  "the  counsel  of  his  own  will.'" 

Eph.  i.  5-11;  2  Tim.  i.  9;  John  xv.  16,  19;  Matt.  xi.  25,  26; 
Rom.  ix.  10-18. 

15.  State  the  argument  derived  from  the  fact  that  "faith"  "  re- 
pentance," and  "evangelical  obedience"  are  said  to  be  the  fruits  of 
the  Election. 

It  is  self-evident  that  the  same  actions  can  not  be  both  the 
grounds  upon  which  election  rests,  and  the  fruits  in  which  that 
election  is  designed  to  result.  Since  the  Bible  teaches  that 
"faith,"  "repentance,"  and  "evangelical  obedience"  are  the 
latter,  they  can  not  be  the  former.  The  Scriptures  do  so  teach 
in  Eph.  i.  4.  "According  as  he  hath  chosen  us  in  him  before  the 
foundation  of  the  world  that  we  should  be  holy,  and  without  blame 
before  him  in  love." — 2  Thess.  ii.  13;  1  Pet.  i.  2;  Eph.  ii.  10. 

16.  The  same  from  tlie  fact  that  faith  and  repentance  are  said 
to  be  the  gifts  of  God. 

If  faith  and  repentance  are  the  "gifts  of  God,"  then  a  man's 
possessing  them  results  from  God's  act.    If  it  results  from  God  a 


220  PREDESTINA  TION. 

act  it  must  result  from  his  eternal  purpose.  If  they  be  the  re* 
suits  of  his  purpose,  they  can  not  be  the  conditions  upon  which 
that  purpose  is  suspended.  They  are  affirmed  to  be  the  "  gifts 
of  God  "  in  Eph.  ii.  8 ;  Acts  v.  31 ;  1  Cor.  iv.  7. 

17.  State  the  argument  derived  from  what  the  Scriptures  teach 
as  to  the  nature  and  extent  of  innate  depravity  and  inability. 

The  teaching  of  Scripture  on  these  heads  will  be  found 
stated  and  established  in  Chapters  XIX.  and  XX.  Now  if 
men  are  born  into  the  world  with  an  antecedent  prevailing 
tendency  in  their  nature  to  sin,  and  they  are  ever,  until  regen- 
erated by  the  Spirit  of  God,  totally  and  inalienably  averse  to 
and  incapable  of  all  good,  it  follows  that  unregenerate  human 
nature  is  incapable  either  of  tending  to  or  of  perfecting  faith 
and  repentance  as  the  conditions  required.  If  election  is  con- 
ditioned upon  faith  and  repentance,  then  the  man  must  produce 
his  own  faith  and  repentance,  or  help  to  produce  them.  But  if 
human  nature  can  neither  produce  nor  help  to  produce  them, 
it  follows  either  that  no  man  can  be  elected,  or  that  faith  and 
repentance  can  not  be  the  condition  of  election. 

18.  State  tJie  same  from  what  the  Scriptures  teach  of  the  nature 
and  necessity  of  regeneration. 

In  Chapter  XXIX.  it  will  be  proved  that  the  Scriptures 
teach  (1)  that  regeneration  is  an  act  of  God;  (2)  that  with 
respect  to  that  act  the  soul  is  passive ;  (3)  that  it  is  absolutely 
necessary  in  the  case  of  every  living  man.  Hence  it  follows 
that  if  it  be  in  no  sense  man's  work,  but  in  every  sense  God's 
act  alone,  it  can  not  be  the  condition  upon  which  God's  purpose 
is  suspended,  but  an  event  determined  by  that  purpose. 

19.  Show  that  the  Scriptures  teach  tJiat  all  tie  elect  believe,  and 
that  only  the  elect  believe. 

All  the  elect  believe.— John  x.  16,  27-29;  John  vi.  37-39; 
John  xvii.  2,  9,  24.  And  only  the  elect  believe. — John  x.  26.  And 
those  who  believe  do  so  because  they  are  elect. — Acts  xiii.  48, 
and  ii.  47. 

20.  What  argument  is  to  be  drawn  from  the  fact  that  all  evan- 
gelical Christians  of  every  tlieological  school  express  the  sentiments 
proper  to  the  Galvinistic  doctrine  of  unconditional  election  in  all 
tJieir  prayers  and  hymns  ? 

That  form  of  doctrine  must  be  false  which  can  not  be  con- 
sistently embodied  in  personal  religious  experience  and  in  devo- 
tion. That  form  of  doctrine  must  be  true  which  all  Christiana 
of  all  theoretical  opinions  always  find  themselves  obliged  to 


THE   DOCTRINE   PROVED.  221 

express  when  they  come  to  commune  with  God.  Now  all  the 
psalms  and  hymns  and  prayers,  written  and  spontaneous,  of 
all  evangelical  Christians,  embody  the  principles  and  breathe 
the  spirit  of  Calvinism.  They  all  pray  God  to  make  men  repent 
and  believe,  to  come  to  and  to  receive  the  Saviour.  If  God 
gives  all  men  common  and  sufficient  grace,  and  if  the  reason 
why  one  man  repents,  is  that  he  makes  good  use  of  that  grace, 
and  the  reason  another  does  not  believe,  is  that  he  does  not 
use  that  grace,  if  the  only  cause  of  difference  is  in  the  men,  it 
follows  that  we  ought  to  pray  men  to  convert  themselves,  i.  e.} 
to  make  themselves  to  differ.  But  all  agree  in  asking  God  to 
save  us,  and  in  giving  him  all  the  thanks  when  it  is  done. 

21.  Show  that  Paul  must  have  held  our  position  on  this  subject 
from  the  nature  of  the  objections  made  against  his  doctrine,  and 
from  the  anstvers  he  gave  them. 

Paul's  doctrine  is  identical  with  the  Calvinistic  view.  1st. 
Because  he  expressly  teaches  it.  2d.  Because  the  objections  he 
notices  as  brought  against  his  doctrine  are  the  same  as  those 
brought  against  ours.  The  design  of  the  whole  passage  is  to 
prove  God's  sovereign  right  to  cast  off  the  Jews  as  a  peculiar 
people,  and  to  call  all  men  indiscriminately  by  the  gospel. 

This,  he  argues,  1st,  that  God's  ancient  promises  embraced 
not  the  natural  descendants  of  Abraham  as  such,  but  the  spir- 
itual seed.  2d.  That  "  God  is  perfectly  sovereign  in  the  distri- 
bution of  his  favors." 

But  against  this  doctrine  of  divine  sovereignty  two  objec- 
tions are  introduced  and  answered  by  Paul. 

1st.  It  is  unjust  for  God  thus  of  his  mere  good  pleasure  to 
show  mercy  to  one  and  to  reject  another,^.  14.  This  precise 
objection  is  made  against  our  doctrine  at  thre  present  time  also. 
"  It  represents  the  most  holy  God  as  worse  than  the  devil,  as 
more  false,  more  cruel,  and  more  unjust." — "Methodist  Doc- 
trinal Tracts,"  pp.  170,  171.  This  Paul  answers  by  two  argu- 
ments. (1.)  God  claims  the  right,  "I  will  have  mercy  on  whom 
I  will  have  mercy." — Rom.  ix.  15,  16.  (2.)  God  in  his  provi- 
dence exercises  the  right,  as  in  the  case  of  Pharaoh,  vs.  17,  18. 

2d.  The  second  objection  is  that  this  doctrine  is  inconsistent 
with  the  liberty  and  accountability  of  men.  This  would  be 
an  absurd  objection  to  bring  against  Paul's  doctrine  if  he  were 
an  Arminian,  but  it  is  brought  every  day  by  Arminians  against 
our  doctrine. 

Paul  answers  this  objection  by  condescending  to  no  appeal 
to  human  reason,  but  simply  (1)  by  asserting  God's  sovereignty 
as  Creator,  and  man's  dependence  as  creature,  and  (2)  by  as- 
serting the  just  exposure  of  all  men  alike  to  wrath  as  sinners, 


222  PREDESTINATION. 

vs.  20-24. — See  Analysis  of  chap.  ix.  6-24,  in  Hodge's  "  Com 
on  Romans." 

22.  Discriminate  accurately  tJie  two  elements  involved  in  the 
doctrine  of  Reprobation. 

Reprobation  is  the  aspect  which  God's  eternal  decree  pre- 
sents in  its  relation  to  that  portion  of  the  human  race  which 
shall  be  finally  condemned  for  their  sins. 

It  is,  1st,  negative,  inasmuch  as  it  consists  in  passing  over 
these,  and  refusing  to  elect  them  to  life;  and,  2d,  positive,  in- 
asmuch as  they  are  condemned  to  eternal  misery. 

In  respect  to  its  negative  element,  reprobation  is  simply 
sovereign,  since  those  passed  over  were  no  worse  than  those 
elected,  and  the  simple  reason  both  for  the  choosing  and  for 
the  passing  over  was  the  sovereign  good  pleasure  of  God. 

In  respect  to  its  positive  element,  reprobation  is  not  sover- 
eign, but  simply  judicial,  because  God  inflicts  misery  in  any 
case  only  as  the  righteous  punishment  of  sin.  "  The  rest  of 
mankind  God  was  pleased,  according  to  the  unsearchable  coun- 
sel of  his  own  will,  to  pass  by,  and  to  ordain  them  to  dishonor 
and  wrath  for  their  sins. — "  Con.  Faith,"  Chap,  iii.,  Sec.  7. 

23.  Show  that  these  positions  are  necessarily  involved  in  the 
general  doctrine  of  Decrees  and  in  tlve  special  doctrine  of  the  election 
of  some  men  to  eternal  life. 

As  above  stated,  this  doctrine  of  reprobation  is  self-evidently 
an  inseparable  element  of  the  doctrines  of  decrees  and  of  elec- 
tion. If  God  unconditionally  elects  whom  he  pleases,  he  must 
unconditionally  leave  whom  he  pleases  to  themselves.  He 
must  foreordain  the  non-believing,  as  well  as  the  believing, 
although  the  events  themselves  are  brought  to  pass  by  very 
different  causes. 

24.  Prove  that  it  is  taught  in  Scripture. 

Rom.  ix.  18,  21;  1  Pet.  ii.  8;  Jude  4;  Rev.  xiii.  8.  "I  thank 
thee,  0  Father,  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  because  thou  hast 
hid  these  tilings  from  the  wise  and  prudent,  and  hast  revealed 
them  unto  babes,  even  so,  Father,  for  so  it  seemeth  good  in  thy 
sight." — Matt.  xi.  25.  "  Ye  believe  not,  because  ye  are  not  my 
sheep." — John  x.  26. 

25.  Show  that  tlve  same  objection  was  made  against  PauVs  doc- 
trine that  is  made  against  ours. 

"Why  doth  he  yet  find  fault?"  If  he  has  not  given  gra- 
cious ability  to  obey,  how  can  he  command? — See  also  "Metho- 
dist Doctrinal  Tracts,"  p.  171. 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED.  223 

The  apostle  answers  by  showing,  1st  (verses  20,  21),  that 
God  is  under  no  obligation  to  extend  his  grace  to  all  or  to  any ; 
and,  2d,  that  the  "  vessels  of  wrath  "  were  condemned  for  their 
own  sins,  to  manifest  God's  just  wrath,  while  the  "vessels  of 
mercy  "  were  chosen  not  for  any  good  in  them,  but  to  manifest 
his  glorious  grace  (verses  22,  23). 

26.  Show  the  identity  of  PauTs  doctrine  with  ours  from  the 
illustrations  he  uses  in  the  ninth  chapter  of  Romans. 

"Hath  not  the  potter  power  (k£ov8La)  over  the  clay  of  the 
same  lu?np  to  make  one  vessel  to  honor,  and  another  to  dis- 
honor," v.  21.  Here  the  whole  point  of  the  illustration  lies  in 
the  fact  that  there  is  no  difference  in  the  clay  —  it  is  clay  of  the 
same  lump  —  the  sole  difference  is  made  by  the  will  of  the  pot- 
ter. In  the  case  of  Esau  and  Jacob,  the  very  point  is  that  one 
is  just  as  good  as  the  other  —  that  there  is  no  difference  in  the 
children  —  but  that  the  whole  difference  is  made  by  the  "  pur- 
pose of  God  according  to  election"  —  "for  the  children  being  not 
yet  born,  neither  having  done  any  good  or  evil,  that  the  purpose  of 
God  according  to  election  might  stand,  not  of  works,  but  of  him  that 
calleth,"  v.  11. 

27.  In  what  sense  is  God  said  to  harden  men  ? 

See  Rom.  ix.  18,  and  John  xii.  40. 

This  is  doubtless  a  judicial  act  wherein  God  withdraws  from 
sinful  men,  whom  he  has  not  elected  to  life,  for  the  just  pun- 
ishment of  their  sins,  all  gracious  influences,  and  leaves  them 
to  the  unrestrained  tendencies  of  their  own  hearts,  and  to  the 
uncounteracted  influences  of  the  world  and  the  devil. 

28.  State  the  objection  brought  against  the  Calvinistic  doctrine 
of  election  on  the  ground  that  it  is  inconsistent  with  Justice. 

It  is  maintained  that  if  God  by  a  sovereign  unconditional 
decree  determines  to  pass  by  some  men,  and  to  withhold  from 
them  the  grace  necessary  to  enable  them  to  repent  and  believe 
in  Christ,  it  is  unjust  in  God  to  hold  them  accountable,  and  to 
punish  them  for  their  want  of  faith. 

29.  State  the  fundamental  view  which  necessarily  underlies  all 
Arminianism  as  to  the  relation  which  the  remedial  work  of  Christ 
sustains  to  the  justice  of  God,  and  as  to  the  relation  which  the  human 
race  by  nature  sustains  to  tJie  divine  government. 

When  the  Arminian  system  is  sifted  to  its  fundamental 
principles,  it  is  found  to  rest  upon  the  postulate  that  the  gift  of 
Christ  is  a  necessary  compensation  to  the  human  race  for  the 
evils  brought  upon  it  for  the  sin  of  Adam.     It  is  admitted  that 


224  PREDESTINATION. 

the  sin  of  Adam  was  the  cause  of  his  whole  race  becoming 
sinners,  and  that  every  one  of  his  descendants  comes  into  the 
world  with  a  nature  so  far  depraved  as  to  be  morally  incapable 
of  loving  God  and  disposed  to  evil.  But  they  maintain  that 
men  are  by  nature  in  the  first  instance  not  responsible  for  their 
moral  condition,  since  it  comes  upon  them  each  at  his  birth, 
antecedent  to  all  personal  action  They  hold,  therefore,  that 
man  can  not  be  punished  for  original  sin,  nor  could  any  man 
ever  be  held  responsible  for  any  act  of  disobedience  springing 
as  an  inevitable  consequence  out  of  that  original  depravity, 
if  God  had  not  through  Christ  provided  a  remedy,  giving  to 
each  man  gracious  ability  to  do  all  that  is  required  of  him  as 
the  condition  of  his  salvation.  This  redemption  and  gracious 
ability  to  believe  and  obey  God  owes  to  all  men,  and  they  are 
necessary  to  render  any  man  responsible  and  punishable  for  his 
sins,  since  thus  alone  is  he,  as  far  as  this  class  of  exercises  go, 
endowed  with  the  power  of  contrary  choice. 

Dr.  D.  D.  Whedon,  in  the  "  Bibliotheca  Sacra,"  April,  1862, 
p.  257. — "It  is  not  then  until  there  is  redemptively  conferred 
upon  man  what  we  call  a  gracious  ability  for  the  right,  that 
man  can  be  strictly  responsible  for  the  wrong."  He  says,  p.  254, 
that  after  Adam  sinned  the  only  alternatives  open  to  God  in  con- 
sistency with  justice  were  either,  1st,  to  send  Adam  and  Eve  to 
perdition  before  they  had  children,  or,  2d,  to  allow  him  to  prop- 
agate his  kind  under  the  antecedent  disabilities  of  sin,  and 
provide  a  redemptive  system  for  all. 

He  distinguishes  between  guilt  or  moral  responsibility  for 
character  and  moral  corruption  of  nature.  Under  the  con- 
ditions of  pure  nature,  he  teaches  that  only  Adam  and  Eve 
were  responsible,  as  well  as  corrupt,  because  they,  having  been 
created  morally  free,  voluntarily  made  themselves  vile  by  their 
own  act.  On  the  other  hand  their  descendants  are  all  morally 
polluted  and  spiritually  dead,  because  they  inherit  corrupt  na- 
tures from  Adam ;  but  they  are  not  guilty,  neither  responsible 
for  their  birth  sin  nor  for  any  of  its  consequences,  because  it 
was  determined  inevitably  by  an  act  not  their  own.  In  the 
actual  state  of  things  consequent  to  the  gift  of  Christ  every 
man  is  responsible  because  every  man  has  sufficient  grace. 

Hence  it  follows — 1st.  That  the  provision  of  redemption  was 
not  a  work  of  infinite  free  grace,  but  a  mere  act  of  justice  in 
compensation  for  evils  brought  upon  our  nature  by  Adam. 
2d.  That  this  is  owed  equally  to  each  and  every  man  with- 
out exception.  "I  reject,"  says  John  Wesley,  "Methodist  Doc. 
Tracts,"  pp.  25,  26,  "  the  assertion  that  God  might  justly  have 
passed  by  me  and  all  men,  as  a  bold,  precarious  assertion, 
utterly  unsupported  by  Holy  Scripture."     3d.  It  follows  also 


SALVATION  IS    OF   GRACE.  225 

that  the  gracious  help  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  just  as  necessary 
to  render  men  responsible  sinners  as  to  bring  them  to  salva- 
tion. 4th.  It  follows  that  grace  sends  men  to  hell,  as  well  as 
takes  them  to  heaven,  and  that  it  has  done  far  more  of  the 
former  than  of  the  latter  work. 

30.  Shoiv  that  their  position  here  is  absolutely  inconsistent  with 
what  the  Scriptures  and  the  entire  Christian  Church  teach  of  the 
nature  and  necessity  of  the  Satisfaction  made  to  divine  justice  by 
Christ. 

It  will  be  shown  under  Chap.  XXV.,  that  the  Scriptures 
teach,  the  entire  Church  being  witness,  that  in  order  to  the 
salvation  of  man,  a  full  satisfaction  to  the  inalienable  principle 
of  justice  essential  to  the  Divine  nature  was  absolutely  necessaiy. 
So  that  if  God's  justice  is  not  satisfied,  grace  can  not  be  shown 
to  any  man.  This  would  be  absurd  if  men  were  not  antece- 
dently responsible  for  the  sins  for  which  it  is  necessary  that  they 
should  make  satisfaction.  What  is  the  sense  of  a  "Redemptively 
conferred  gracious  ability  "  respecting  parties  who  have  forfeited 
nothing  because  they  are  responsible  for  nothing?  In  their  case 
is  not  both  "redemption"  and  "grace"  an  impertinence? 

31.  Prove  from  Scripture  that  salvation  is  of  grace. 

Grace  is  free,  undeserved  favor  showed  to  the  undeserving. 
If  redemption  is  a  debt  owed  to  all  men,  or  if  it  be  a  compen- 
sation prerequisite  to  their  accountability,  then  it  can  not  be  a 
gratuity,  and  the  gift  of  Christ  can  not  be  an  eminent  expres- 
sion of  God's  free  favor  and  love.  It  can  only  be  an  expression 
of  his  rectitude. 

But  the  Scriptures  declare  that  the  gift  of  Christ  is  an  un- 
paralleled expression  of  free  love,  and  that  salvation  is  of  grace. 
Lam.  iii.  22;  John  iii.  16;»Rom.  iii.  24;  xi.  5,  6;  1  Cor.  iv.  7; 
xv.  10;  Eph.  i.  5,  6;  ii.  4-10,  etc.  And  every  true  Christian 
recognizes  the  essential  graciousness  of  salvation  as  an  insep- 
arable element  of  his  experience.  Hence  the  doxologies  of 
heaven.— 1  Cor.  vi.  19,  20;  1  Pet.  i.  18,  19;  Rev.  v.  8-14. 

But  if  salvation  is  of  grace,  then  it  is  obviously  consistent 
with  God's  justice  for  him  to  save  all,  many,  few,  or  none,  just 
as  he  pleases. 

32.  SJtow  that  the  objection  that  unconditioned  election  is  incon- 
sistent with  tJie  justice  of  God  is  absurd  and  antichristian. 

Justice  necessarily  holds  all  sinners  alike  destitute  of  all 

claims  upon  God's  favor.     It  is  unjust  to  justify  the  unjust.     It 

would  be  inconsistent  with  righteousness  for  a  sinful  man  to 

claim,  or  for  God  to  grant,  salvation  to  anv  one  as  his  due, 

15 


226  PREDESTINATION. 

Otherwise  the  condemning  sentence  of  conscience  is  denied, 
and  the  cross  of  Christ  made  of  none  effect.  On  the  very 
grounds  of  justice  itself,  therefore,  salvation  must  be  of  grace, 
and  it  must  rest  upon  the  sovereign  option  of  God  himself 
whether  he  provides  salvation  for  few,  many,  or  for  none.  The 
salvation  of  none  is  consistent  with  justice,  or  the  sacrifice  of 
Christ  was  a  payment  of  debt  not  a  grace.  And  the  salvation 
of  one  undeserving  sinner  obviously  can  lay  no  foundation  upon 
which  the  salvation  of  another  can  be  demanded  as  a  right. 

33.  State  and  refute  the  objection  that  our  doctrine  is  inconsistent 
witli  the  rectitude  of  God  as  an  impartial  ruler. 

Arminians  often  argue  that  reason  teaches  us  to  expect  the 
great  omnipotent  Creator  and  Sovereign  of  all  men  to  be  im- 
partial in  his  treatment  of  individuals — to  extend  the  same 
essential  advantages  and  conditions  of  salvation  to  all  alike. 
They  argue  also  that  this  fair  presumption  of  reason  is  reaf- 
firmed in  the  Scriptures,  which  declare  that  God  is  "no  re- 
specter of  persons." — Acts  x.  34,  and  1  Pet.  i.  17.  In  the  first- 
named  passage  this  applies  simply  to  the  application  of  the 
gospel  to  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews.  In  the  second  passage  it 
is  affirmed  that  in  the  judgment  of  human  works  God  is  abso- 
lutely impartial.  The  question  as  to  election,  however,  is  as 
to  grace  not  as  to  judgment  pronounced  on  works,  and  the 
Scriptures  nowhere  say  that  God  is  impartial  in  the  commu- 
nication of  his  grace. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  presumptions  of  reason  and  the  texts 
of  Scripture  must  be  interpreted  in  a  sense  consistent  with  the 
palpable  facts  of  human  history  and  of  God's  daily  providential 
dispensations.  If  it  is  unjust  in  principle  for  God  to  be  partial 
in  his  distributions  of  spiritual  good,  it  can  be  no  less  unjust 
for  him  to  be  partial  in  his  distribution  of  temporal  good.  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  however,  we  find  that  God  in  the  exercise  of 
his  absolute  sovereignty  makes  the  greatest  possible  distinc- 
tions among  men  from  birth,  and  independently  of  their  own 
merits  in  the  allotments  both  of  temporal  good  and  of  the  es- 
sential means  of  salvation.  One  child  is  born  to  health,  honor, 
wealth,  to  the  possession  of  a  susceptible  heart  and  conscience, 
and  to  all  the  best  means  of  grace  as  his  secure  inheritance. 
Many  others  are  born  to  disease,  shame,  poverty,  an  obtuse 
conscience  and  hardened  heart,  and  absolute  heathenish  dark- 
ness and  ignorance  of  Christ.  If  God  may  not  be  partial  to 
individuals,  why  may  he  be  partial  to  nations,  and  how  can 
his  dealings  with  heathen  nations  and  the  children  of  the 
abandoned  classes  in  the  nominally  Christian  cities  be  ac- 
counted for? 


OBJECTIONS   ANSWERED.  227 

Archbishop  Whately  gives  this  excellent  word  of  warning 
to  his  Arminian  friends :  "  I  would  suggest  a  caution  relative 
to  a  class  of  objections  frequently  urged  against  Calvinists 
drawn  from  the  moral  attributes  of  God.  We  should  be  very 
cautious  how  we  employ  such  weapons  as  may  recoil  Upon 
ourselves.  It  is  a  frightful  but  undeniable  truth  that  multi- 
tudes, even  in  Christian  countries,  are  born  and  brought  up  in 
such  circumstances  as  afford  them  no  probable,  even  no  pos- 
sible, chance  of  obtaining  a  knowledge  of  religious  truths,  or 
a  habit  of  moral  conduct,  but  are  even  trained  from  infancy  in 
superstitious  error  and  gross  depravity.  Why  this  should  be 
permitted  neither  Calvinist  nor  Arminian  can  explain;  nay, 
why  the  Almighty  does  not  cause  to  die  in  the  cradle  every 
infant  whose  future  wickedness  and  misery,  if  suffered  to  grow 
up,  he  foresees,  is  what  no  system  of  religion,  natural  or  re- 
vealed, will  enable  us  satisfactorily  to  account  for." — "  Essays 
on  some  of  the  Difficulties  of  St.  Paul."     Essay  3d,  on  Election. 

34.  Refute  the  objection  draivnfrom  such  passages  as  1  Tim.  ii.  4 

"  Who  will  (BiXei)  all  men  to  be  saved  and  to  come  unto  the 
knowledge  of  the  truth." 

The  word  GsXeir  has  two  senses — (a)  to  be  inclined  to,  to 
desire;  {b)  to  purpose,  to  iviU.  In  such  connections  as  the  above 
it  is  evident  that  it  can  not  mean  that  God  purposes  the  salva- 
tion of  all,  because  (a)  all  are  not  saved,  and  none  of  God's 
purposes  fail,  and  (b)  because  it  is  affirmed  that  he  wills  all  to 
"  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth "  in  the  same  sense  that 
he  wills  all  to  be  saved — yet  he  has  left  the  vast  majority  of 
men  to  be  born  and  to  live  and  to  die,  irrespective  of  their 
own  agency,  in  heathenish  darkness. 

Such  passages  simply  assert  the  essential  benevolence  of 
God.  He  takes  no  pleasure  in  the  death  of  the  wicked.  He 
does  take  great  pleasure  in  the  salvation  of  men.  Yet  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  in  perfect  consistency  with  his  benevolence,  for 
reasons  sufficient,  though  not  revealed  to  us,  he  has  provided 
no  redemption  for  lost  angels,  and  no  efficacious  grace  for  the 
non-elect  among  mankind.  These  passages  simply  assert  that, 
it  it  were  not  for  these  reasons,  it  would  be  agreeable  to  his 
benevolent  nature  that  all  men  should  be  saved. 

35.  Show  that  our  doctrine  does  not  discourage  the  use  of  means. 

It  is  objected  that  if  God  from  eternity  has  determined  that 
one  man  is  to  be  converted  and  saved  and  another  is  to  be  left 
to  perish  in  his  sins,  there  is  no  room  left  for  the  use  of  means. 
As  John  Wesley,  in  "  Methodist  Doc.  Tracts,"  falsely  represents 


228  PREDESTINATION. 

the  doctrine  of  Toplady,  "  There  are  suppose  twenty  men,  ten 
are  ordained  to  be  saved  do  what  they  may,  and  ten  are  or- 
dained to  be  damned  do  what  they  can."  This  is  an  absurd  aa 
well  as  wicked  caricature  of  the  doctrine. 

1st.  The  decree  of  election  does  not  secure  salvation  without 
faith  and  holiness,  but  salvation  through  faith  and  holiness,  the 
means  being  just  as  much  decreed  as  the  end.  The  Calvin, 
ist  believes,  as  well  as  the  Arminian,  that  every  man  who  does 
evil  will  be  damned,  elect  or  non-elect. 

2d.  The  doctrine  of  election  does  not  presume  that  God  con- 
strains men  inconsistently  with  their  freedom.  The  non-elect 
are  simply  let  alone,  to  do  as  their  own  evil  hearts  prompt. 
The  elect  are  made  willing  in  the  day  of  God's  power.  God 
works  in  them  to  will  as  well  as  to  do  of  his  good  pleasure. 
To  be  made  -willing  takes  away  no  man's  liberty. 

3d.  The  decree  of  election  only  makes  the  repentance  and 
faith  of  the  elect  certain.  But  the  antecedent  certainty  of  a 
free  act  is  not  inconsistent  with  its  freedom,  otherwise  the 
certain  foreknowledge  of  a  free  act  would  be  impossible.  The 
decree  of  election  does  not  cause  the  faith,  and  it  does  not 
interfere  with  the  agent  in  acting,  and  certainly  it  does  not 
supersede  the  absolute  necessity  of  it. 

36.  How  far  is  assurance  of  our  election  possible,  and  on  what 
grounds  does  such  assurance  rest  ? 

An  unwavering  and  certain  assurance  of  the  fact  of  our  elec- 
tion is  possible  in  this  life,  for  whom  God  predestinates  them 
he  also  calls,  and  whom  he  calls  he  justifies,  and  we  know  that 
whom  he  justifies,  he  also  sanctifies.  Thus  the  fruits  of  the 
Spirit  prove  sanctification,  and  sanctification  proves  effectual 
calling,  and  effectual  calling  election. — See  2  Pet.  i.  5-10;  1 
John  ii.  3. 

Besides  this  evidence  of  our  own  gracious  states  and  acts, 
we  have  the  Spirit  of  adoption,  who  witnesseth  with  our  spirits 
and  seals  us. — Rom.  viii.  16,  17 ;  Eph.  iv.  30. 

In  confirmation  of  this  we  have  the  example  of  the  apostles 
(2  Tim.  l  12)  and  of  many  Christians. 

37.  How  does  this  doctrine  consist  with  tlie  general  benevolence 
of  God? 

The  only  difficulty  at  this  point  is  to  reconcile  the  general 
benevolence  of  God  with  the  fact  that  he,  being  infinitely  wise 
and  powerful,  should  have  admitted  a  system  involving  the  sin, 
final  impenitence,  and  consequent  damnation  of  any.  But  this 
difficulty  presses  equally  upon  both  systems. 


OBJECTIONS   ANSWERED.  229 

The  facts  prove  that  God's  general  benevolence  is  not  incon- 
sistent with  his  allowing  some  to  be  damned  for  their  sins. 
This  is  all  that  reprobation  means.  Gratuitous  election,  or  the 
positive  choice  of  some  does  not  rest  upon  God's  general  benev- 
olence, but  upon  his  special  love  to  his  own. — John  xvii.  6,  23; 
Rom.  ix.  11-13;  1  Thess.  v.  9. 

38.  Hoiv  does  this  doctrine  consist  ivith  the  general  gospel  offer  ? 

In  the  general  offers  of  the  gospel  God  exhibits  a  salvation 
sufficient  for  and  exactly  adapted  to  all,  and  sincerely  offered 
to  every  one  without  exception,  and  he  unfolds  all  the  motives 
of  duty,  hope,  fear,  etc.,  which  ought  to  induce  every  one  to 
accept  it,  solemnly  promising  that  whosoever  comes  in  no  wise 
shall  be  cast  out.  Nothing  but  a  sinful  unwillingness  can  pre- 
vent any  one  who  hears  the  gospel  from  receiving  and  enjoy- 
ing it. 

The  gospel  is  for  all,  election  is  a  special  grace  in  addition 
to  that  offer.  The  non-elect  may  come  if  they  will.  The  elect 
will  come.  The  decree  of  election  puts  no  barrier  before  men 
preventing  them  from  accepting  the  gospel  offer.  Any  man, 
elect  or  non-elect,  will  be  saved  if  he  accepts.  The  non-elect 
are  left  to  act  as  they  are  freely  determined  by  their  own 
hearts. 

There  is  just  as  great  an  apparent  difficulty  in  reconciling 
God's  certain  foreknowledge  of  the  final  impenitence  of  the 
great  majority  of  those  to  whom  he  offers  and  upon  whom  he 
presses,  by  every  argument,  his  love  with  the  fact  of  that  offer ; 
especially  when  we  reflect  that  he  foresees  that  his  offers  will 
certainly  increase  their  guilt  and  misery. 

39.  Hoio  can  the  doctrine  of  reprobation  be  reconciled  with  the 
holiness  of  God  ? 

Reprobation  leaves  men  in  sin,  and  thus  leads  to  the  increase 
of  sin  throughout  eternity.  How  then  can  God,  in  consistency 
with  his  holiness,  form  a  purpose  the  designed  effect  of  which 
is  to  leave  men  in  sin,  and  thus  lead  inevitably  to  the  increase 
of  sin. 

But  it  is  acknowledged  by  Arminians  as  well  as  Calvinists, 
that  God  did  create  the  human  race  in  spite  of  his  certain  fore- 
knowledge that  sin  would  be  largely  occasioned  thereby,  and 
he  did  create  individual  men  in  spite  of  his  certain  foreknowl- 
edge that  these  very  men  would  continue  eternally  to  sin.  The 
real  difficulty  lies  in  the  insoluble  problem  of  the  permission  of 
evil.  Why  is  the  existence  of  evil  tolerated  in  the  universe 
of  an  infinitely  wise,  righteous,  merciful,  and  powerful  God? 


230  PREDESTINATION. 

The  Arminians  are  as  little  able  to  answer  that  question  as  the 
Calvinist. 

40.  What  is  the  practical  bearing  of  this  doctrine  on  Christian 
experience  and  conduct  ? 

It  must  be  remembered,  1st.  That  this  truth  is  not  inconsist- 
ent with,  but  is  part  of,  the  same  gracious  system  with  the 
equally  certain  principles  of  the  moral  liberty  and  responsi- 
bility of  man,  and  the  free  offers  of  the  gospel  to  all.  2d.  That 
the  sole  rule  of  our  duty  is  the  commands,  threatenings,  and 
promises  of  God  clearly  expressed  in  the  gospel,  and  not  this 
decree  of  election,  which  he  never  reveals  except  in  its  conse- 
quents of  effectual  calling,  faith,  and  holy  living. 

When  thus  held,  the  doctrine  of  predestination — 

1st.  Exalts  the  majesty  and  absolute  sovereignty  of  God, 
while  it  illustrates  the  riches  of  his  free  grace  and  his  just  dis- 
pleasure with  sin. 

2d.  It  enforces  upon  us  the  essential  truth  that  salvation  is 
entirely  of  grace.  That  no  one  can  either  complain,  if  passed 
over,  or  boast  himself,  if  saved. 

3d.  It  brings  the  inquirer  to  absolute  self-despair,  and  the 
cordial  embrace  of  the  free  offer  of  Christ. 

4th.  In  the  case  of  the  believer,  who  has  the  witness  in  him- 
self, this  doctrine  at  once  deepens  his  humility,  and  elevates 
his  confidence  to  the  full  assurance  of  hope. 

41.  State  the  true  nature  of  the  question  discussed  by  tJieologians 
concerning  tJie  order  of  the  divine  decrees. 

As  we  believe  that  the  Decree  of  God  is  one  single,  eternal 
intention,  there  can  not  be  an  order  of  succession  in  his  pur- 
poses either  (a)  in  time,  as  if  one  purpose  actually  preceded 
the  other,  or  (b)  in  distinct  deliberation  or  option  on  the  part 
of  God.  The  whole  is  one  choice.  Yet  in  willing  the  entire 
system  God,  of  course,  comprehended  all  the  parts  of  the  system 
willed  in  their  several  successions  and  relations.  In  like  man- 
ner as  a  man  by  one  act  of  mind  recognizes  a  complicated 
machine  with  which  he  is  familiar,  and  in  the  same  act  discrim- 
inates accurately  the  several  parts,  and  comprehends  their  unity 
and  relation  in  the  system,  and  the  design  of  the  whole. — Dr. 
Charles  Hodge's  "  Lectures."  The  question,  therefore,  as  to  the 
Order  of  the  Decrees  is  not  a  question  as  to  the  order  of  acts  in 
God  decreeing,  but  it  is  a  question  as  to  the  true  relation  sus- 
tained by  the  several  parts  of  the  system  which  he  decrees  to 
one  another.  That  is,  What  relation  between  Creation,  Predes- 
tination, and  Kedemption  did  the  one  eternal  purpose  of  God 


ME    ORDER    OF   THE  DIVINE  DECREES.  231 

establish  ?  What  do  the  Scriptures  teach  as  to  the  purpose  of 
God  in  giving  his  Son,  and  as  to  the  object  and  ground  of  elec- 
tion ?  The  ground  and  object  of  election  has  been  fully  con- 
sidered above.  The  design  of  God  in  the  gift  of  Christ  will  be 
fully  considered  under  Division  IV.  of  Chapter  XXV. 

42.  What  is  tJie  Arminian  tJieory  as  to  the  order  of  the  decrees 
relating  to  the  human  race? 

1st.  The  decree  to  create  man.  2d.  Man,  as  a  moral  agent, 
being  fallible,  and  his  will  being  essentially  contingent,  and 
his  sin  therefore  being  impreventible,  God,  foreseeing  that  man 
would  certainly  fall  into  the  condemnation  and  pollution  of  sin, 
decreed  to  provide  a  free  salvation  through  Christ  for  all  men, 
and  to  provide  sufficient  means  for  the  effectual  application  of 
that  salvation  to  the  case  of  all.  3d.  He  decreed  absolutely 
that  all  believers  in  Christ  should  be  saved,  and  all  unbeliev- 
ers reprobated  for  their  sins.  4th.  Foreseeing  that  certain 
individuals  would  repent  and  believe,  and  that  certain  other 
individuals  would  continue  impenitent  to  the  last,  God  from 
eternity  elected  to  eternal  life  those  whose  faith  he  foresaw, 
on  the  condition  of  their  faith,  and  reprobated  those  whom 
he  foresaw  would  continue  impenitent  on  the  condition  of  that 
impenitence. 

43.  What  is  tlve  view  of  this  subject  entertained  by  tJie  French 
Protestant  theologians,  Camero,  Amyraut,  and  others  ? 

These  theological  professors  at  Saumur,  during  the  second 
quarter  of  the  seventeenth  century,  taught  that  God — 1st.  De- 
creed to  create  man.  2d.  To  permit  man  to  fall.  3d.  To  pro- 
vide, in  the  mediation  of  Christ,  salvation  for  all  men.  4th.  But, 
foreseeing  that  if  men  were  left  to  themselves  none  would  re- 
pent and  believe,  therefore  he  sovereignly  elected  some  to 
whom  he  decreed  to  give  the  necessary  graces  of  repentance 
and  faith. 

44.  What  is  the  infra-lapsarian  view  of  predestination? 

The  infra-lapsarian  {infra  lapsum)  theory  of  predestination, 
or  the  decree  of  predestination,  viewed  as  subsequent  in  pur- 
pose to  the  decree  permitting  man  to  fall,  represents  man  as 
created  and  fallen  as  the  object  of  election.  The  order  of  the 
decrees  then  stand  thus :  1st.  The  decree  to  create  man.  2d.  To 
permit  man  to  fall.  3d.  The  decree  to  elect  certain  men,  out  of 
the  mass  of  the  fallen  and  justly  condemned  race,  to  eternal  life, 
and  to  pass  others  by,  leaving  them  to  the  just  consequences  of 
their  sins      4th.  The  decree  to  provide  salvation  for  the  elect 


232  PREDESTINATION. 

This  is  the  common  view  of  the  Reformed  Churches,  confirmed 
alike  by  the  synod  of  dort  and  the  westminster  assembly. 

45.  What  is  the  supra-lapsarian  theory  of  predestination  ? 

The  term  supra-lapsarian  (supra  lapsum)  designates  that  view 
of  the  various  provisions  of  the  divine  decree  in  their  logical 
relations  which  supposes  that  the  ultimate  end  which  God  pro- 
posed to  himself  was  his  own  glory  in  the  salvation  of  some 
men  and  in  the  damnation  of  others,  and  that,  as  a  means  to 
that  end,  he  decreed  to  create  man,  and  to  permit  him  to  fall. 
According  to  this  view,  man  simply  as  creatible,  and  fallible, 
and  not  as  actually  created  or  fallen,  is  the  object  of  election 
and  reprobation.  The  order  of  the  decrees  would  then  be — 
1st.  Of  all  possible  men,  God  first  decreed  the  salvation  of 
some  and  the  damnation  of  others,  for  the  end  of  his  own 
glory.  2d.  He  decreed,  as  a  means  to  that  end,  to  create  those 
already  elected  or  reprobated.  3d.  He  decreed  to  permit  them 
to  fall.  4th.  He  decreed  to  provide  a  salvation  for  the  elect. 
This  view  was  held  by  Beza,  the  successor  of  Calvin  in  Geneva, 
and  by  Gomarus,  the  great  opponent  of  Arminius. 

46.  State  the  respective  points  of  agreement  and  of  difference 
betiveen  these  several  schemes. 

1st.  The  Arminian  as  compared  with  the  Calvinistic  scheme. 

With  the  Arminian  the  decree  of  redemption  precedes  the 
decree  of  election,  which  is  conditioned  upon  the  foreseen  faith 
of  the  individual. 

With  the  Calvinist,  on  the  other  hand,  the  decree  of  election 
precedes  the  decreo  of  redemption,  and  the  decree  of  election  is 
conditioned  upon  the  simple  good  pleasure  of  God  alone. 

2d.  The  French  or  Salmurian  as  compared  with  the  legiti- 
mate view  of  the  Reformed  Churches  and  with  the  Arminian 
view.  The  French  view  agrees  with  the  Reformed  and  differs 
from  the  Arminian  view  in  making  the  sovereign  good  pleasure 
of  God  the  sole  ground  of  election;  while  it  differs  from  the 
Reformed  and  agrees  with  the  Arminian  in  making  the  decree 
of  redemption  precede  the  decree  of  election. 

3d.  The  supra-lapsarian  scheme  as  compared  with  the  infra- 
lapsarian  view  prevalent  among  the  Reformed  Churches.  The 
supra-lapsarian  scheme  makes  the  decree  to  elect  some  and 
reprobate  others,  precede  the  decree  to  create  and  to  permit  to 
fall.  The  infra-lapsarian  view  makes  the  decree  of  election 
come  after  the  decree  to  create  and  permit  to  fall.  The  supra- 
lapsarian  view  regards  man  not  as  created  and  fallen,  but  sim- 
ply as  creatible,  the  object  of  election  and  reprobation.     The 


THE  ORDER  OF  THE  DIVINE  DECREES.  233 

infra-lapsarian  view  makes  man  as  already  created  and  fallen 
the  only  object  of  those  decrees. 

47.  State  the  arguments  against  tlve  supra-lapsarian  sclieme. 

This  scheme  is  unquestionably  the  most  logical  of  all.  It 
is  postulated  upon  the  principle,  that  what  is  last  in  execution 
is  first  in  intention,  which  undoubtedly  holds  true  in  all  spheres 
comprehended  in  human  experience.  Hence  it  is  argued  that 
if  the  final  result  of  the  whole  matter  is  the  glorification  of 
God  in  the  salvation  of  the  elect  and  the  perdition  of  the  non- 
elect,  it  must  have  been  the  deliberate  purpose  of  God  from  the 
beginning.  But  the  case  is  too  high  and  too  vast  for  the  a 
priori  application  and  enforcement  of  the  ordinary  rules  of 
human  judgment;  we  can  here  only  know  in  virtue  of  and 
within  the  limits  of  a  positive  revelation. 

The  objections  against  this  scheme  are — 

1st.  Man  creatible  is  a  nonentity.  He  could  not  have  been 
loved  or  chosen  unless  considered  as  created. 

2d.  The  whole  language  of  Scripture  upon  this  subject  im- 
plies that  the  "  elect "  are  chosen  as  the  objects  of  eternal  love, 
not  from  the  number  of  creatible,  but  from  the  mass  of  actually 
sinful  men. — John  xv.  19 ;  Rom.  xi.  5,  7. 

3d.  The  Scriptures  declare  that  the  elect  are  chosen  to  sanc- 
tification,  and  to  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Christ.  They 
must  therefore  have  been  regarded  when  chosen  as  guilty  and 
defiled  by  sin. — 1  Pet.  i.  2 ;  Eph.  i.  4-6. 

4th.  Predestination  includes  reprobation.  This  view  repre-^ 
sents  God  as  reprobating  the  non-elect  by  a  sovereign  act,  with- 
out any  respect  to  their  sins,  simply  for  his  own  glory.  This 
appears  to  be  inconsistent  with  the  divine  righteousness,  as 
well  as  with  the  teaching  of  Scripture.  The  non-elect  are  "  or- 
dained to  dishonor  and  wrath  for  their  sins,  to  the  praise  of  his 
glorious  justice. — "Conf.  Faith,"  ch.  3,  sec.  3-7,  "L.  Cat.,"  ques- 
tion 13;  "S.  Cat,"  question  20. 

48.  Show  that  a  correct  exegesis  of  Eph.  iii.  9,  10,  does  not  sup- 
port  the  supra-lapsarian  view. 

This  passage  is  claimed  as  a  direct  affirmation  of  the  supra- 
lapsarian  theory.  If  the  'iva,  introducing  the  tenth  verse,  refers 
to  the  immediately  preceding  clause,  then  the  passage  teaches 
that  God  created  all  things  in  order  that  his  manifold  wisdom 
might  be  displayed  by  the  church  to  the  angels.  It  is  evident, 
however,  that  'iva,  refers  to  the  preceding  phrase,  in  which 
Paul  declares  that  he  was  ordained  to  preach  the  gospel  to  the 
Gentiles,  and  to  enlighten  all  men  as  to  the  mystery  of  redemp* 


5234  PREDESTINA  TION. 

tion.     All  this  lie  was  commissioned  to  do,  in  order  that  God'h 
glory  might  be  displayed,  etc. — See  "  Hodge  on  Ephesians." 

49.  State  the  arguments  against  the  French  scheme. 

1st.  It  is  not  consistent  with  the  fact  that  God's  purposes 
are  one.  The  scheme  is  that  God  in  one  eternal  act  determined 
to  provide  the  objective  conditions  of  salvation  (redemption 
through  the  blood  of  Christ),  for  all,  and  to  provide  the  sub- 
jective conditions  of  salvation  (efficacious  grace)  only  for  some. 
This  is  in  reality  an  attempt  to  weld  together  Arminianism  and 
Calvinism.  2d.  The  Scriptures  declare  that  the  purpose  of 
Christ's  coming  was  to  execute  the  purpose  of  election.  He 
came  to  give  eternal  life  to  as  many  as  the  Father  has  given 
him.  John  xvii.  2,  9;  x.  15.  Redemption  therefore  can  not 
precede  election.  3d.  The  true  doctrine  of  the  Atonement  (see 
Chapter  XXV.)  is  that  Christ  did  not  come  to  make  salvation 
possible,  but  to  effect  it  for  all  for  whom  he  died.  The  Atone- 
ment secures  remission  of  sin,  and  faith,  and  repentance,  and 
all  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit.  Therefore  all  who  are  redeemed 
repent  and  believe. 

50.  In  what  sense  do  tlve  Lutherans  teach  that  Christ  is  the 
ground  of  election  ? 

They  hold  that  God  elected  his  own  people  to  eternal  life 
for  Christ's  sake.  They  appeal  to  Eph.  i.  4,  "  According  as  he 
hath  chosen  us  in  him  [Christ]  before  the  foundation  of  the 
world."  This  view  may  evidently  be  construed  either  with  the 
Arminian  or  the  French  theory  of  the  decrees  above  stated, 
i.  e.,  we  were  chosen  in  Christ  for  his  sake,  either  as  we  were 
foreseen  to  be  in  him  through  faith,  or  because  God,  having 
provided  through  Christ  salvation  for  all  men,  would,  by  the 
election  of  certain  individuals,  secure  at  least  in  then*  case  the 
successful  effect  of  Christ's  death. 

This  view,  of  course,  is  rebutted  by  the  same  arguments 
which  we  urge  against  the  theories  above  mentioned.  We  are 
said  to  be  chosen  "  in  him,"  not  for  Christ's  sake,  but  because 
the  eternal  covenant  of  grace  includes  all  the  elect  under  the 
headship  of  Christ.  The  love  of  God  is  everywhere  represented 
as  the  ground  of  the  gift  of  Christ,  not  the  work  of  Christ  the 
ground  of  the  love  of  God. — John  iii.  16;  1  John  iv.  10. 

DIFFERENT  VlEWS  OF  THE   ChXTRCEES. 

The  Lutheran  View. — "That  which  first  of  all  should  be  accurately 
observed,  is  the  difference  between  foreknowledge  and  predestination  or 
the  eternal  election  of  God.  For  the  '  Foreknowledge  of  God '  is  nothing 
more  than  that  God  knew  all  things  before  they  existed This 


AUTHORITATIVE    STATEMENTS.  235 

foreknowledge  of  God  pertains  alike  to  good  and  to  bad  men,  but  it  is 
not  consequently  the  cause  of  evil,  nor  the  cause  of  sin,  which  impels 
man  to  crime.  For  sin  originates  from  the  devil  and  from  the  depraved 
and  wicked  will  of  man.  Neither  is  this  foreknowledge  of  God  the  cause 
that  men  perish;  for  that  they  ought  to  charge  upon  themselves;  but  the 
foreknowledge  of  God  disposes  evil,  and  sets  bounds  to  it,  determining 
whither  it  shall  go,  and  how  long  it  shall  last,  so  that,  although  it  be  in 
itself  evil,  it  conspires  to  the  salvation  of  God's  elect. 

"On  the  other  hand,  'Predestination,'  or  the  eternal  election  of 
God,  pertains  only  to  the  good  and  chosen  sons  of  God,  and  it  is  the 
cause  of  their  salvation.  For  it  procures  their  salvation,  and  disposes 
to  those  things  which  pertain  to  it.  Our  salvation  is  so  founded  upon 
this  predestination  that  the  gates  of  hell  shall  never  be  able  to  overturn 
it.  This  predestination  of  God  is  not  to  be  sought  in  the  secret  council 
of  God,  but  in  the  word  of  God,  in  which  it  is  revealed.  For  the  word 
of  God  leads  us  to  Christ,  that  is  that  book  of  life  in  which  all  are  in- 
scribed and  elect  who  attain  to  eternal  salvation.  For  so  it  is  written 
(Eph.  i.  4)  he  chose  us  in  Christ  before  the  foundation  of  the  world.  .  .  . 
The  word  of  God,  the  'book  of  life'  offers  Christ  to  us,  and  this  is 
opened  and  developed  to  us  through  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  as  it  is 
written  (Rom.  viii.  30)  whom  he  chose,  them  he  called.  In  Christ  there- 
fore the  eternal  election  of  the  Father  is  to  be  sought.  He  in  his  eter- 
nal counsel  has  decreed  that,  except  those  who  know  his  Son  Jesus  Christ, 
and  truly  believe  on  him,  none  shall  be  saved." — "Formula  Concordia," 
Hase  Collect.,  pp.  617-619. 

John  Gerhard  (1582-1637),  Loci  EL,  86  B.— "We  say  that  all  those, 
and  those  alone,  are  elected  from  eternity  by  God  to  salvation,  whom  he 
foresaw  would  believe  in  Christ  the  redeemer  through  the  efficacy  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  the  ministry  of  the  gospel,  and  should  persevere  in 
faith  until  the  end  of  lif e. " 

The  Doctkine  of  the  Reformed  Churches.— "  Thirty-Nine  Articles 
of  the  Church  of  England."    Article  XVII. — See  above,  Chap.  VH. 

'*  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,"  Chap.  iii. — "The  rest  of  mankind, 
God  was  pleased,  according  to  the  unsearchable  counsel  of  his  own  will, 
whereby  he  extendeth  or  withholdeth  mercy  as  he  pleaseth,  for  the  glory 
of  his  sovereign  power  over  his  creatures,  to  pass  by,  and  to  ordain  them 
to  dishonor  and  wrath  for  their  sins,  and  to  the  praise  of  his  glorious  JUS' 
TiCE."— "Conf.  Faith,"  ch.  iii.,  g  7. 

"  Cations  of  Synod  of  Dort"  Cap.  I.,  \  7. — "But  election  is  the  immu- 
table purpose  of  God,  by  which,  before  the  foundations  of  the  world 
were  laid,  he  chose,  out  of  the  whole  human  race,  fallen  by  their  own 
fault  from  their  primeval  integrity  into  sin  and  destruction,  according 
to  the  most  free  good  pleasure  of  his  own  will,  and  of  mere  grace,  a 
certain  number  of  men,  neither  better  nor  worthier  than  others,  but 
lying  in  the  same  misery  with  the  rest,  to  salvation  in  Christ,  whom  he 
had  ever  from  eternity  constituted  Mediator  and  Head  of  all  the  elect, 

and  the  foundation  of  salvation \  9.  This  same  election  is 

not  made  from  any  foreseen  faith,  obedience  of  faith,  holiness,  or  any 
other  good  quality  or  disposition,  as  a  prerequisite  cause  or  condition 
in  the  man  who  should  be  elected,  but  unto  faith,  and  unto  obedience  of 
faith,  and  holiness.  And  truly  election  is  the  fountain  of  every  saving 
benefit;  whence  faith,  holiness,  and  other  salutary  gifts,  and,  finally,  eter- 
nal life  itself,  flow  as  its  fruit  and  effect,  g  15.  Moreover,  holy  Scripture 
doth  illustrate  and  commend  to  us  this  eternal  and  free  grace  of  our 
election,  in  this  more  especially,  that  it  doth  also  testify  all  men  not  to 


23G  PREDESTINATION. 

be  elected,  but  that  some  are  non-elect,  or  passed  by  in  the  eternal  elec- 
tion of  God,  whom  truly  God,  from  most  free,  just,  irreprehensible  and 
immutable  good  pleasure,  decreed  to  live  in  the  common  misery,  into 
which  they  had,  by  their  own  fault,  cast  themselves,  and  not  to  bestow 
upon  them  living  faith  and  the  grace  of  conversion." 

Bemoststbants. — "  Remonstrantia,"  etc.,  five  articles  prepared  by  the 
Dutch  advocates  of  universal  redemption  (1610),  Art.  I. — "God  by  an 
immutable  decree,  before  he  laid  the  foundations  of  the  world,  ordained 
in  Jesus  Christ  his  Son,  to  save  out  of  the  fallen  human  race,  exposed  to 
punishment  on  account  of  sin,  those  in  Christ,  on  account  of  Christ,  and 
through  Christ,  who  by  the  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit  believe  his  Son,  and 
who  through  the  same  grace  persevere  in  the  obedience  of  faith  to  the 
end.  And  on  the  other  hand  (he  decreed)  to  leave  in  sin  and  exposed  to 
wrath  those  who  are  not  converted,  and  are  unbelieving,  and  to  condemn 
them  as  aliens  from  Christ,  according  to  John  iii.  36. " 


CHAPTER  XII. 

THE  CREATION  OF  THE  WORLD. 

1.  What  is  the  origin  of  the  Doctrine  of  Creation  ex  nihih? 

The  prevalency,  if  not  the  conception,  of  the  idea  of  absolute 
creation,  or  of  creation  ex  nihih,  is  to  be  referred  to  the  influence 
of  the  inspired  word  of  God.  Anterior  to  revelation  there  were 
two  prevalent  causes  which  prevented  the  acceptance  of  this 
idea,  (a.)  The  universally  assumed  truth  of  the  axiom  that 
ex  nihilo  nihil  ft.  Hence  all  theists  and  atheists  alike  failed 
to  conceive  oi\  or  conceiving  repudiated,  the  idea  of  absolute 
creation  as  absurd,  (b.)  The  second  cause  influencing  theists 
was  the  presumed  interest  of  natural  theology,  in  the  impossi- 
bility, on  that  hypothesis,  of  reconciling  the  existence  of  evil 
with  the  perfections  of  God. 

2.  What  vieivs  were  respectively  held  by  the  great  theists  Plato 
and  Aristotle  ? 

Plato  held  that  there  are  two  eternal,  self-existent  principles, 
God  and  matter,  vXtj,  which  exist  co-ordinately  in  an  indivisi- 
ble, unsuccessive  eternity ;  that  time  and  the  actual  phenomenal 
world  which  exists  in  time,  are  the  work  of  God,  who  freely 
moulds  matter  into  forms  which  image  his  own  infinitely  perfect 
and  eternal  ideas.  Aristotle  also  held  that  God  and  matter  are 
co-ordinately  self-existent  and  eternal;  but  he  differed  from 
Plato  in  regarding  God  as  eternally  self-active  in  organizing 
the  world  out  of  matter,  and  consequently  in  regarding  the  uni- 
verse thus  organized  as  eternal  as  well  as  the  mere  matter  of 
which  it  is  formed. — "Ancient  Phil.,"  W.  Archer  Butler,  Series 
3,  Lectures  1  and  2. 

3.  What  vieivs  on  this  point  p-evaUed  among  the  Gnostics  ? 

Some  of  the  Gnostics  taught  that  the  universe  proceeds 
from  God  by  way  of  emanation,  which  was  explained  as  "a 
necessary  and  gradual  unfolding  ad  extra  of  the  germ  of  exist- 
ence that  lay  in  God,"  as  radiance  proceeds  from  the  sun,  etc. 
Most  of  the  Gnostics  united  with  this  theory  of  emanation  the 


238  THE    CREATION  OF   THE    WORLD. 

doctrine  of  dualism,  i.  e.,  of  the  co-ordinate  self-existence  of  two 
independent  principles,  God  and  matter  {yXtj).  From  God  by 
successive  emanations  proceeded  the  iEons,  the  Demimgos, 
Creator  of  the  world,  the  Jehovah  of  the  Old  Testament,  and 
finally  Christ.  The  material  universe  springs  from  self-exist- 
ent matter,  intrinsically  evil,  organized  by  the  Demimgos.  All 
souls  have  emanated  from  the  world  of  light,  but  have  become 
entangled  in  matter,  hence  the  historical  contest  between  good 
and  evil,  which  Christ  came  to  settle  by  giving  power  to  souls 
ultimately  to  escape  from  the  toils  of  matter. 

4.  What  is  the  view  on  this  subject  common  to  all  scJtemes  of 
Pantlveism  ? 

Pantheists  identify  God  and  the  universe.  God  is  the  abso- 
lute being  of  which  things  are  the  special  and  transient  modes. 
God  is  the  self-existent  and  persistent  principle  of  all  things, 
which  by  an  inherent  self-acting  law  of  development  is  eter- 
nally running  through  ceaseless  cycles  of  change. 

5.  State  the  true  doctrine  as  to  creation. 

The  Christian  doctrine  as  to  Creation  involves  the  following 
points:  1st.  "In  the  beginning,"  at  some  unknown  point  of  de- 
finite commencement  in  time.  2d.  God  called  all  things  (that 
is  the  original  principles  and  causes  of  all  things)  into  being 
out  of  nothing.  Thus  every  thing  which  has  or  wall  or  can 
exist,  exterior  to  the  Godhead,  owes  its  being  and  substance  as 
well  as  its  form  to  God.  3d.  This  creative  act  is  an  act  of  free, 
self-determined  will.  It  was  not  a  necessary  constitutional  act 
analogous  to  the  immanent  and  eternal  acts  of  the  Generation 
of  the  Son  or  the  Procession  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  4th.  It  was 
not  necessary  to  complete  the  divine  excellence  or  blessed- 
ness, which  were  eternal  and  complete  and  inseparable  from 
the  divine  essence.  But  it  was  done  in  the  exercise  of  abso- 
lute discretion  for  infinitely  wise  reasons. — Dr.  Charles  Hodge. 

This  doctrine  is  essential  to  Theism.  All  opposing  theories 
of  the  origin  of  the  world  are  essentially  Pantheistic  or  Atheistic. 

6.  What  distinction  is  signalized  by  the  terms  Creatio  prima 
eeu  immediata,  and  Creatio  secunda  seu  mediata,  and  by  whom 
was  it  introduced? 

The  phrase  Creatio  prima  seu  immediata  signifies  the  origi- 
nating act  of  the  divine  will  whereby  he  brings,  or  has  brought, 
into  being,  out  of  nothing,  the  principles  and  elementary  es- 
sences of  all  things.  The  phrase  Creatio  secunda  seu  mediate 
signifies  the  subsequent  act  of  God  in  originating  different 
forms  of  things,  and  especially  different  species  of  living  beings 


ABSOLUTE   CREATION  TAUGHT  IN  SCRIPTURE.         239 

out  of  the  already  created  essences  of  things.  The  Christian 
Church  holds  both.  These  phrases  originated  in  the  writings 
of  certain  Lutheran  theologians  of  the  seventeenth  century, 
e.  g.,  Gerhard,  Quenstedt,  etc. 

7.  What  is  the  primary  signification,  and  what  the  biblical 
mage  of  the  word  fc02? 

"  1st.  Strictly,  To  hew,  cut  out.  2d.  To  form,  malce,  produce 
(whether  out  of  nothing  or  not). — Gen.  i.  l/21,  27;  ii.  3,  4;  Isa. 
xliii.  1,  7;  xlv.  7;  lxv.  18;  Ps.  Ii.  12;  Jer.  xxxi.  22;  Amos  iv.  13. 
Niphal,  1st.  To  be  created,— Gen.  ii.  4;  v.  2.  2d.  To  be  born.— Ps. 
cii.  19;  Ezek.  xxi.  35.  Piel,  1st.  To  hew,  cut  down,  e.  g.,  a  wood. 
Josh.  xvii.  15,  18.  2d.  To  cut  down  (with  the  sword),  to  hill. 
Ezek.  xxiii.  47.  3d.  To  form,  engrave,  mark  out. — Ezek.  xxi.  24." 
Gesenius'  "Lex." 

8.  State  tlie  direct  proof  of  the  truth  of  this  doctrine  afforded  in 
Scripture. 

1st.  Since  the  idea  itself  is  new,  and  foreign  to  all  prece- 
dent modes  of  thought,  it  could  be  conveyed  in  Scripture  only 
through  the  use  of  old  terms,  previously  bearing  a  different 
sense,  but  so  employed  as  to  suggest  a  new  meaning.  The 
word  "bara,"  however,  is  the  best  one  the  Hebrew  language 
afforded  to  express  the  idea  of  absolute  making. 

2d.  This  new  idea  is  inevitably  suggested  by  the  way  in 
which  the  term  is  first  used  by  Moses,  when  giving  account 
from  the  very  commencement  of  the  genesis  of  the  heavens 
and  the  earth.  As  a  general  introduction  to  the  history  of  the 
formation  of  the  world  and  its  inhabitants,  it  is  declared  that 
"  In  the  beginning — in  the  absolute  beginning,  God  made  the 
heavens  and  the  earth."  There  is  not  the  slightest  hint  given 
of  any  previously  existing  material.  In  the  beginning  God  made 
the  heavens  and  the  earth,  after  that  Chaos  existed,  for  then  it 
is  said  "  the  earth  was  without  form  and  void,"  and  the  Spirit 
of  God  brooded  over  the  abyss. 

3d.  The  same  truth  is  also  inevitably  suggested  in  all  the 
various  modes  of  expression  by  which  the  agency  of  God  in 
originating  the  world  is  set  forth  in  Scripture.  In  no  case  is 
there  the  faintest  trace  of  any  reference  to  any  pre-existing 
materials  or  precedent  conditions  of  creation.  In  every  case 
the  whole  causal  agency  to  which  the  creation  is  referred  is 
the  "Word,"  the  bare  "fiat"  of  Jehovah. — Ps.  xxxiii.  6  and 
cxlviii.  5.  "By  faith  we  understand  that  the  worlds  were 
framed  by  the  word  of  God,  so  that  things  which  are  seen 
(ra  ftXETtopisvoc)  were  not  made  of  things  which  do  appear  {up 
tx  <paivojuevoovy, — Heb.  xi.  3.     See  Rom.  iv.  17 ;  2  Cor.  iv.  H. 


240  THE    CREATION   OF    THE    WORLD. 

9.  In  roliat  manner  is  this  doctrine  of  the  absolute  creation  of 
the  world  by  God  implied  in  Scripture  ? 

1st.  In  all  those  passages  that  teach  that  God  is  an  absolute 
Sovereign,  and  that  the  creature  is  absolutely  dependent  on  him, 
"in  whom  we  live  and  move  and  have  our  being." — Acts 
xvii.  28;  Neh.  ix.  6;  Col.  i.  16;  Rev.  iv.  11;  Rom.  xi.  36; 
1  Cor.  viii.  6. 

Now  it  is  evident  that  if  the  essences  and  primordial  princi- 
ples of  all  things  are  not  immediately  created  by  God  out  of 
nothing,  but  are  eternally  self-existent  independently  of  him, 
then  he,  in  his  offices  of  Creator  and  Providential  governor  of 
all  things,  must  be  conditioned  and  limited  by  the  pre-existing 
essential  properties  and  powers  of  those  primordial  elements. 
In  which  case  God  would  not  be  absolute  Sovereign,  nor  the 
things  made  absolutely  dependent  upon  his  will. 

2d.  In  all  those  passages  which  teach  that  the  kosmos,  the 
'  all  things  "  had  a  beginning. — Ps.  xc.  2 ;  John  xvii.  5,  24. 

10.  What  arguments  derived  from  reason  and  consciousness, 
and  from  the  elementary  constitution  of  matter,  may  be  adduced  in 
proof  of  absolute  creation  ? 

1st.  This  doctrine  alone  is  consistent  with  the  feeling  of 
absolute  dependence  of  the  creature  upon  the  Creator,  which  is 
inherent  in  every  heart,  and  which  is  inculcated  in  all  the  teach- 
ings of  the  Scriptures.  It  could  not  be  said  that  "he  upholds 
all  things  by  the  word  of  his  power,"  nor  that  "  we  live  and 
move  and  have  our  being  in  him,"  unless  he  be  absolutely  the 
Creator  as  well  as  the  Former  of  all  things. 

2d.  It  is  manifest  from  the  testimony  of  consciousness: 
(1.)  That  our  souls  are  distinct  individual  entities,  and  not 
parts  or  particles  of  God;  (2.)  that  they  are  not  eternal.  It 
follows  consequently  that  they  were  created.  And  if  the  crea- 
tion of  the  spirits  of  men  ex  nihilo  be  once  admitted,  there 
remains  no  special  difficulty  with  respect  to  the  absolute  crea- 
tion of  matter. 

3d.  Although  the  absolute  origination  of  any  new  existence 
out  of  nothing  is  to  us  confessedly  inconceivable,  it  is  not  one 
whit  more  so  than  the  relation  of  the  infinite  foreknowledge,  or 
foreordination,  or  providential  control  of  God  to  the  free  agency 
of  men,  nor  than  many  other  truths  which  we  are  all  forced  to 
believe. 

4th.  After  having  admitted  the  necessary  self-existence  of 
an  infinitely  wise  and  powerful  personal  Spirit,  whose  exist- 
ence, upon  the  hypothesis  of  his  possessing  the  power  of  abso- 
lute creation,  is  sufficient  to  account  for  all  the  phenomena  of 


SCIENTIFIC   EVIDENCE.  241 

the  universe,  it  is  unphilosophical  gratuitously  to  multiply 
causes  by  supposing  the  independent,  eternal  self-existence  of 
matter  also. 

5th.  When  the  physical  philosopher  has  analyzed  matter  to 
its  ultimate  atoms,  and  determined  their  essential  primary 
properties,  he  finds  in  them  as  strong  evidence  of  a  powerful 
antecedent  cause,  and  of  a  wisely  designing  mind,  as  he  does 
in  the  most  complex  organizations  of  nature ;  for  what  are  the 
ultimate  properties  of  matter  but  the  elementary  constituents 
of  the  universal  laws  of  nature,  and  the  ultimate  conditions  of 
all  phenomena.  If  design  discovered  in  the  constitution  of  the 
universe  as  finished  proves  a  divine  Former,  by  equal  right 
must  the  same  design  discovered  in  the  elementary  constitution 
of  matter  prove  a  divine  Creator. 

Atoms  were  asserted  by  Sir  John  Herschell  to  have  all  the 
appearance  of  "a  manufactured  article,"  on  account  of  their 
uniformity. 

"  Whether  or  not  the  conception  of  a  multitude  of  beings 
existing  from  all  eternity  is  in  itself  self-contradictory,  the  con- 
ception becomes  palpably  absurd  when  we  attribute  a  relation 
of  quantitive  equality  to  all  those  beings.  We  are  then  forced 
to  look  beyond  them  to  some  common  cause,  or  common  origin, 
to  explain  why  this  singular  relation  of  equality  exists  .  .  . 
We  have  reached  the  utmost  limit  of  our  thinking  faculties 
when  we  have  admitted  that  because  matter  can  not  be  eternal 
and  self-existent  it  must  have  been  created." — Prof.  J.  Clerk- 
Maxwell  in  Art.  Atom,  "  Encyclo.  Britannica,"  9th  ed. 

11.  State  and  refute  the  objection  to  this  doctrine  based  upon 
the  axiom,  "  Ex  nihilo  nihil  fit." 

It  is  objected  that  it  is  an  original  and  self-evident  princi- 
ple of  reason,  that  only  nothing  can  come  from  nothing.  We 
answer  that  this  statement  is  indefinite.  If  it  is  meant  that  no 
new  thing,  nor  any  change  in  a  previously  existing  thing,  can 
begin  to  be  without  an  adequate  cause,  we  answer  that  it  is 
true,  but  does  not  apply  to  the  case  in  hand.  Our  doctrine  is 
not  that  the  universe  came  into  being  without  an  adequate 
cause,  but  that  the  essences  as  well  as  the  forms  of  all  things 
had  a  beginning  in  time,  and  their  cause  exists  only  in  the  will 
of  God.  The  infinite  power  inherent  in  a  self-existent  Spirit  is 
precisely  the  Cause  to  which  we  refer  the  absolute  origination 
of  all  things.  But  if  it  is  meant  by  the  above  objection  that 
this  infinite  God  has  not  power  to  create  new  entities,  then  the 
principle  is  simply  false  and  not  self-evident;  it  bears  not  one 
of  the  marks  of.a  valid  intuition — neither  self-evidence,  necee- 
eity,  nor  universality. 

16 


242  THE    CREATION   OF    THE    WORLD. 

12.  State  and  refute  the  position  of  some  wluo  maintain  on  moral 
grounds  the  self-existence  of  matter. 

Those  among  theistic  thinkers  who  have  been  tempted  to 
regard  matter  as  eternal  and  self-existent,  have  been  influenced 
by  the  vain  hope  of  explaining  thereby  the  existence  of  moral 
evil  in  consistency  with  the  holiness  of  God.  They  would  refer 
all  the  phenomena  of  sin  to  an  essentially  evil  principle  inher- 
ent in  matter,  and  would  justify  God  by  maintaining  that  ho 
has  done  all  that  in  him  lay  to  limit  that  evil.  Now,  besides 
the  inconsistency  of  this  theory's  attempt  to  vindicate  the  holi- 
ness of  God  at  the  expense  of  his  independence,  it  proceeds 
upon  absurd  principles,  as  appears  from  the  following  consid- 
erations: (1.)  Moral  evil  is  in  its  essence  an  attribute  of  spirit. 
To  refer  it  to  a  material  origin  must  logically  lead  to  the 
grossest  materialism.  (2.)  The  entire  Christian  system  of  relig- 
ion, and  the  example  of  Christ,  is  in  opposition  to  that  asceti- 
cism and  "neglecting  of  the  body"  (Col.  ii.  23),  which  neces- 
sarily springs  from  the  view  that  matter  is  the  ground  of  sin. 
(3.)  When  God  created  the  material  universe  he  pronounced 
his  works  "very  good."  (4.)  The  second  Person  of  the  holy 
Trinity  assumed  a  real  material  body  into  personal  union  with 
himself.  (5.)  The  material  creation,  now  "made  subject  to 
vanity  "  through  man's  sin,  is  to  be  renovated  and  made  the 
temple  in  which  the  God-man  shall  dwell  forever. — See  below, 
Chap.  XXXIX.,  Question  17.  (6.)  The  work  of  Christ  in  deliv- 
ering his  people  from  their  sin  does  not  contemplate  the  renun- 
ciation of  the  material  part  of  our  natures,  but  our  bodies,  which 
are  now  "the  members  of  Christ,"  and  the  "temples  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  are  at  the  resurrection  to  be  transformed  into  the  like- 
ness of  his  glorified  body.  Yet  nothing  could  be  more  absurd 
than  to  argue  that  the  d(Sjua  TtvEvuazmov  is  not  as  literally 
material  as  the  present  6gou<x  ipvxixov.  (7.)  If  the  cause  of  evil 
is  essentially  inherent  in  matter,  and  if  its  past  developments 
have  occurred  in  spite  of  God's  efforts  to  limit  it,  what  certain 
ground  of  confidence  can  any  of  us  have  for  the  future. 

13.  Prove  that  the  work  of  creation  is  in  Scripture  attributed 
to  God  absolutely,  i.  e.,  to  each  of  the  three  persons  of  the  Trinity 
co-ordinately,  and  not  to  eitlver  as  his  special  personal  function. 

1st.  To  the  Godhead  absolutely. — Gen.  i.  1,  26.  2d.  To  the 
Father,  1  Cor.  viii.  6.  3d.  To  the  Son. — John  i.  3;  Col.  i.  16,  17. 
4th.  To  the  Holy  Spirit. — Gen.  i.  2 ;  Job  xxvi.  13 ;  Ps.  civ.  30. 

14.  How  can  it  be  proved  that  no  creature  can  ci-eate? 

1st.  From  the  nature  of  the  work.     It  appears  to  us  ii"»* 


THE    CHIEF  END    OF   GOD    IN   CREATION.  243 

the  work  of  absolute  creation  ex  nihilo  is  an  infinite  exercise  of 
power.  It  is  to  us  inconceivable  because  infinite,  and  it  can 
belong,  therefore,  only  to  that  Being  who,  for  the  same  reason, 
is  incomprehensible.  2d.  The  Scriptures  distinguish  Jehovah 
from  all  creatures,  and  from  false  gods,  and  establish  his  sover- 
eignty and  rights  as  the  true  God  by  the  fact  that  he  is  the 
Creator,  Is.  xxxvii.  16;  xL  12,  13;  liv.  5;  Ps.  xcvi.  5;  Jer.  x.  11, 12. 
3d.  If  it  were  admitted  that  a  creature  could  create,  then  the 
works  of  creation  would  never  avail  to  lead  the  creature  to  an 
infallible  knowledge  that  his  creator  was  the  eternal  and  self- 
existent  God. 

15.  Why  is  it  important  for  us  to  know,  if  such  knowledge  be 
possible,  what  Gods  chief  end  in  creation  was  ? 

This  is  not  a  question  of  vain  curiosity.  It  is  evident,  since 
God  is  eternal,  immutable,  and  of  absolutely  perfect  intelli- 
gence, that  the  great  end  or  ultimate  purpose  for  which  he 
at  the  beginning  created  all  things  must  have  been  kept  in 
view  unchangeably  in  all  his  works,  and  so  all  his  works  must 
be  more  directly  or  remotely  a  means  to  that  end.  Now  our 
minds  are  so  constituted  that  we  can  understand  a  system  only 
when  we  understand  its  ultimate  purpose  or  end.  Thus  we  can 
comprehend  the  parts  of  a  watch  or  steam  engine,  and  their 
relations  and  functions,  only  after  we  understand  the  end  or 
purpose  which  the  entire  watch  or  engine  was  intended  to 
serve.  And  although  God  has  hid  from  us  many  of  his  subor- 
dinate purposes,  we  believe  that  he  has  revealed  to  us  that  great 
ultimate  design,  without  a  glimpse  of  which  the  true  character 
of  his  general  administration  never  could  be  in  any  degree  com- 
prehended. None  can  deny  that  if  he  has  revealed  his  ultimate 
})urpose  in  creation,  that  it  must  be  a  matter  to  us  of  the  very 
lighest  importance. 

It  is  self-evident  that  ice  can  not  rise  to  so  high  a  generali- 
zation as  this  by  any  process  of  induction  from  what  we  know 
or  can  know  of  his  works.  Our  conclusion  on  this  subject  must 
therefore  be  drawn,  in  the  first  instance  at  least,  entirely  from 
what  we  know  of  God's  attributes  and  from  the  explicit  teach- 
ings of  his  word. 

16.  What  is  the  meaning  of  the  term  Theodicy,  and  by  whom 
was  this  department  of  speculative  theology  in  tJie  first  instance 
formally  explored  ? 

The  term  Theodicy  (QeoS  Siurj)  signifies  a  speculative  justifi- 
cation of  the  ways  of  God  towards  the  human  race,  especially 
as  respects  the  origin  of  evil,  and  the  moral  government  of  tha 
world.     It  was  first  exalted  into  a  department  of  theological 


24A  THE    CREATION   OF    THE    WORLD. 

science  by  the  great  German  philosopher  Leibnitz,  in  his  great 
work  entitled  "Theodicy,  or  the  Goodness  of  God,  the  Liberty 
of  Man,  and  the  Origin  of  Evil,"  a.  d.  1710. 

17.  What  view  as  to  the  end  of  God  in  creation  did  Leibnitz 
advocate,  and  by  whom  has  he  been  followed  ? 

Leibnitz  held  that  all  moral  excellence  can  be  resolved  into 
benevolence,  and  that  the  grand,  all-comprehending  purpose  of 
God  in  the  creation  of  the  universe,  and  in  his  preservation  and 
government  thereof,  is  the  promotion  of  the  happiness  of  his 
creatures.  Hence  he  concludes  that  God  has  chosen  the  best 
possible  system  to  attain  that  end  in  the  largest  possible  degree. 
This  is  the  system  of  Optimism. 

This  view  has  prevailed  largely  among  the  New  England 
theologians,  in  connection  with  the  prevalent  theory  which 
regards  all  virtue  as  consisting  in  disinterested  benevolence. 

The  objections  to  this  view  are — 1st.  All  virtue  does  not 
consist  in  disinterested  benevolence. — See  above,  Chapter  VIII., 
Ques.  61.  And  happiness  is  not  the  highest  good.  2d.  It  sub- 
ordinates the  Creator  to  the  creature,  the  greater  to  the  less,  as 
the  means  to  an  end.  When  God  from  eternity  formed  the 
purpose  to  create,  no  creatures  existed  to  be  made  happy  or 
miserable.  The  motive  to  create  therefore  could  not  have  orig- 
inated in  the  non-existent,  and  could  have  its  origin  and  object 
only  in  the  divine  being  himself.  3d.  The  Scriptures  (see  next 
question)  never  either  directly  or  indirectly  intimate  that  any 
thing  in  the  creature  is  the  chief  end  of  God,  nor  do  they  ever 
propose  any  personal  or  public  good  of  the  creature  as  the  chief 
end  of  the  creature  himself. 

18.  State  the  true  view  and  quote  the  statements  of  the  Confession 
of  Faith? 

The  true  view  is  that  the  great  end  of  God  in  creation  was 
his  own  glory.  Glory  is  manifested  excellence.  The  excellence 
of  his  attributes  are  manifested  by  their  exercise.  This  end 
therefore  was  not  the  increase  either  of  his  excellence  or  bless- 
edness, but  their  manifestation  ad  extra. 

"It  pleased  God,  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost, for  the 
manifestation  of  the  glory  of  his  eternal  poicer,  wisdom,  and  good- 
ness, in  the  beginning  to  create  or  make  of  nothing  the  world, 
and  all  things  therein,  whether  visible  or  invisible,  in  the  space 
of  six  days,  and  all  very  good." — "  Conf.  Faith,"  Ch.  iv.,  §  1. 
The  same  is  affirmed  to  be  the  chief  end  of  God  in  all  his  pur- 
poses and  works  of  Providence  and  Redemption. — Ch.  iii.  §  3 


THE   MOSAIC    RECORD    OF   CREATION.  245 

5,  7,  and  Ch.  v.  §  1;  Ch.  vi.  §  1;  Ch.  xxxiii.  §  2;  "Larger  Cat.," 
Qs.  12  and  18;  "S.  Cat.,"  Qs.  7. 

19.  State  from  reason  and  Scripture  tliz  arguments  which  sus' 
tain  this  view. 

1st.  Since  God  formed  the  purpose  to  create  before  any  crea- 
ture existed,  it  is  evident  that  the  motive  to  create  must  have 
its  source  and  object  in  the  pre-existing  Creator  and  not  in 
the  non-existing  creature.  The  absolute  Creator  can  not  be 
subordinated  to  nor  conditioned  upon  the  finite  and  depend- 
ent creature. 

2d.  Since  God  himself  is  infinitely  worthier  than  the  sum 
of  all  creatures,  it  follows  that  the  manifestation  of  his  own 
excellence  is  infinitely  a  higher  and  worthier  end  than  the  hap- 
piness of  the  creatures,  indeed  the  highest  and  worthiest  end 
conceivable. 

3d.  Nothing  can  so  exalt  and  bless  the  creature  as  his  being 
made  thus  the  instrument  and  the  witness  of  the  infinite  Crea- 
tor's glory,  hence  the  proposing  that  glory  as  the  "  chief  end  " 
of  the  creation  is  the  best  security  for  the  creature's  advance 
in  excellence  and  blessedness. 

4th.  The  Scriptures  explicitly  assert  that  this  is  the  chief 
end  of  God  in  creation  (Col.  i.  16;  Prov.  xvi.  4),  and  of  things 
as  created. — Rev.  iv.  11;  Rom.  xi.  36. 

5th.  They  teach  that  the  same  is  the  chief  end  of  God  in 
his  eternal  decrees. — Eph.  i.  5,  6,  12. 

6th.  Also  of  God's  providential  and  gracious  governing  and 
disposing  of  his  creatures. — Rom.  ix.  17,  22,  23;  Eph.  iii.  10. 

7th.  It  is  made  the  duty  of  all  moral  agents  to  adopt 
the  same  as  their  personal  end  in  all  things. — 1  Cor.  x.  31 ;  1 
Pet.  iv.  11. 

20.  What  is  the  present  attitude  of  Geological  science  in  relation 
to  tlue  Mosaic  Record  of  creation? 

The  results  of  modern  geological  science  clearly  establish 
the  conclusions — (a.)  That  the  elementary  materials  of  which 
the  world  is  composed  existed  an  indefinitely  great  number  of 
ages  ago.  (&.)  That  the  world  has  been  providentially  brought 
to  its  present  state  by  a  gradual  progression,  through  many 
widely  contrasted  physical  conditions,  and  through  long  inter- 
vals of  time,  (c.)  That  it  has  successively  been  inhabited  by 
many  different  orders  of  organized  beings,  each  in  turn  adapted 
to  the  physical  conditions  of  the  globe  in  its  successive  stages, 
and  generally  marked  in  each  stage  by  an  advancing  scale  of 
organization,  from  the  more  elementary  to  the  more  complex 
and  more  perfect  forms,     (d.)  That  man  completes  the  pyramid 


246  THE    CREATION   OF    THE    WORLD. 

of  creation,  the  most  perfect,  and  the  last  formed  of  all  the  in- 
habitants of  the  world.  The  only  difficulty  in  adjusting  these 
results  with  the  Mosaic  Record  of  creation  is  found  in  matters 
of  detail,  in  which  the  true  sense  of  the  inspired  record  is  ob- 
scure, and  the  conclusions  of  the  science  are  immature.  There- 
fore all  such  detailed  adjustments  as  that  attempted  by  Hugh 
Miller  in  his  "Testimony  of  the  Rocks"  have  failed.  As  to 
the  relation  of  the  findings  of  science  with  respect  to  the  an- 
tiquity of  man  to  Biblical  Chronology  see  below,  Chapter  XVI. 
In  general,  however,  there  is  a  most  remarkable  agreement  be- 
tween the  Mosaic  Record  and  the  results  of  Geology  as  to  the 
following  principal  points.  The  Record  agrees  with  the  science 
in  teaching — (a.)  The  creation  of  the  elements  in  the  remote 
past.  (6.)  The  intermediate  existence  of  chaos,  (c.)  The  ad- 
vance of  the  earth  through  various  changes  to  its  present 
physical  condition,  (d.)  The  successive  creations  of  different 
genera  and  species  of  organized  beings — the  vegetable  before 
the  animal — the  lower  forms  before  the  higher  forms — in  adap- 
tation to  the  improving  condition  of  the  earth — and  man  last 
of  all. 

If  we  remember  when  and  where  and  for  what  purpose  this 
Record  was  produced,  and  compare  it  with  all  other  ancient  or 
mediaeval  cosmogonies,  this  wonderful  agreement  with  the  last 
results  of  modern  science  will  be  felt  to  contribute  essentially 
to  the  evidences  of  its  divine  origin.  It  is  certainly,  even 
when  read  subject  to  the  most  searching  modern  criticism, 
seen  to  be  amply  sufficient  for  the  end  intended,  as  a  general 
introduction  to  the  history  of  Redemption,  which  although 
rooted  in  creation  is  henceforward  carried  on  as  a  system  of 
supernatural  revelations  and  influences. 

21.  State  the  several  principles  which  should  alioays  he  borne 
in  mind  in  considering  questions  involving  an  apparent  conflict  of 
science  and  revelation, 

1st.  God's  works  and  God's  word  are  equally  revelations 
from  him.  They  are  consequently  both  alike  true,  and  both 
alike  sacred,  and  to  be  treated  with  reverence.  It  is  absolutely 
impossible  that  when  they  are  both  adequately  interpreted  they 
can  come  into  conflict.  Jealousy  on  either  part,  is  treason  to 
the  Author  and  Lord  of  both. 

2d.  Science,  or  the  interpretation  of  God's  works,  is  there- 
fore a  legitimate  and  obligatory  department  of  human  study. 
It  has  its  rights  which  must  be  respected,  and  its  duties  which 
it  must  observe.  It  is  the  right  of  every  science  to  pursue  the 
investigation  of  its  own  branch  according  to  its  own  legitimate 
methods.     We  can  not  require  of  the  chemist  that  he  should 


RELATION  OF  SCIENCE   AND  REVELATION.  247 

Eursue  the  methods  of  the  philologist,  nor  of  the  geologist  that 
e  should  go  to  history,  either  profane  or  sacred,  for  his  facts. 
It  is  the  duty  of  the  students  of  every  science  to  keep  within 
its  province,  to  recognize  the  fact  that  it  is  only  one  depart- 
ment of  the  vast  empire  of  truth,  and  to  respect  alike  all  orders 
of  truth,  historical  and  inspired  as  well  as  scientific;  mental 
and  spiritual,  as  well  as  material. 

3d.  It  follows  as  a  practical  consequence  from  the  narrow- 
ness of  the  human  faculties,  that  men  confined  to  particular 
branches  of  inquiry  acquire  special  habits  of  thought,  and  as- 
sociations of  ideas  peculiar  to  their  line,  by  which  they  are  apt 
to  measure  and  judge  the  whole  world  of  truth.  Thus  the  man 
of  science  misinterprets  and  then  becomes  jealous  of  the  theo- 
logian, and  the  theologian  misinterprets  and  becomes  jealous 
of  the  man  of  science.  This  is  narrowness,  not  superior  knowl- 
edge; weakness,  not  strength. 

4th.  Science  is  only  the  human  interpretation  of  God's  works, 
it  is  always  imperfect  and  makes  many  mistakes.  Biblical  in- 
terpreters are  also  liable  to  mistakes  and  should  never  assert 
the  absolute  identity  of  then  interpretations  of  the  Bible  with 
the  mind  of  God. 

5th.  All  sciences  in  their  crude  condition  have  been  thought 
to  be  in  confKct  with  Scripture.  But  as  they  have  approached 
perfection,  they  have  been  all  found  to  be  perfectly  consistent 
with  it.  Sometimes  it  is  the  science  which  is  amended  into 
harmony  with  the  views  of  the  theologian.  Sometimes  it  is 
the  views  of  the  theologian  which  are  amended  into  harmony 
with  perfected  and  demonstrated  science,  e.  g.,  the  instance  of 
the  universal  and  now  grateful  acceptance  by  the  church  of 
the  once  abhorred  Copernican  system. 

6th.  In  the  case  of  many  sciences,  as  eminently  of  Geology, 
the  time  has  not  yet  come  to  attempt  an  adjustment  between 
their  conclusions  and  revelation.  SLike  contemporaneous  his- 
tory in  its  relation  to  prophecy,  Geology  in  its  relation  to  the 
Mosaic  Record  of  creation  is  in  transitu.  Its  conclusions  are 
not  yet  mature.  When  geologists  are  all  agreed  among  them- 
selves, when  all  the  accessible  facts  of  the  science  are  observed, 
analyzed,  and  classified,  and  when  Generalization  has  done  its 
perfect  work,  and  when  all  of  its  results  are  finished  and  finally 
fixed  as  part  of  the  intellectual  heritage  of  man  forever,  then 
the  adjustment  between  science  and  revelation  will  stand  self- 
revealed,  and  science  Avill  be  seen  to  support  and  illustrate 
instead  of  oppose,  the  written  word  of  God. 

7.  There  are  hence  two  opposite  tendencies  which  equally 
damage  the  cause  of  religion,  and  manifest  the  weakness  of 
the  faith  of  its  professed  friends.     The  first  is  the  weak  accept 


248  THE    CREATION   OF    THE    WORLD. 

ance  of  every  hostile  conclusion  of  scientific  speculators  as 
certainly  true ;  the  constant  confession  of  the  inferiority  of  the 
light  of  revelation  to  the  light  of  nature,  and  of  the  certainty 
of  the  conclusions  of  Biblical  exegesis  and  Christian  theology 
to  that  of  the  results  of  modern  science;  the  constant  attempt 
to  accommodate  the  interpretation  of  the  Bible,  like  a  nose  of 
wax,  to  every  new  phase  assumed  by  the  current  interpretations 
of  nature.  Tlie  second  and  opposite  extreme  is  that  of  jealously 
suspecting  all  the  findings  of  science  as  probable  offences 
against  the  dignity  of  revelation,  and  of  impatiently  attacking 
even  those  passing  phases  of  imperfect  science  which  for  the 
time  appear  to  be  inconsistent  with  our  own  opinions.  Stand- 
ing upon  the  rock  of  divine  truth,  Christians  need  not  fear, 
and  can  well  afford  to  await  the  result.  Perfect  faith,  as  well 
as  perfect  love,  casteth  out  all  fear.  All  things  are  ours, 
whether  the  natural  or  the  supernatural,  whether  science  or 
revelation. — See  Isaac  Taylor's  "Kestoration  of  Belief,"  pp.  9,  10 


CHAPTER    XIII. 

ANGELS. 

1.  What  are  (lie  different  senses  in  ivhich  the  word  ayyeXoi, 
angel,  or  messenger,  is  used  in  Scripture? 

"  Ordinary  messengers,  Job  i.  14 ;  Luke  vii.  24 ;  ix.  52 ;  proph- 
ets, Is.  xlii.  19 ;  Mai.  iii.  1 ;  priests,  Mai.  ii.  7 ;  ministers  of  the 
New  Testament,  Rev.  i.  20;  also  impersonal  agents,  as  pillar 
of  cloud,  Ex.  xiv.  19;  pestilence,  2  Sam.  xxiv.  16,  17;  winds, 
Ps.  civ.  4;  plagues,  called  'evil  angels,'  lxxviii.  49;  Paul's 
thorn  in  the  flesh,  'angel  of  Satan,'  2  Cor.  xii.  7."  Also  the 
second  person  of  the  Trinity,  "  Angel  of  his  presence ; "  "  Angel 
of  the  Covenant,"  Isa.  lxiii.  9;  Mai.  iii.  1.  But  the  term  is 
chiefly  applied  to  the  heavenly  intelligences,  Matt.  xxv.  31. — 
See  Kitto's  "Bib.  Ency." 

2.  What  are  the  Scriptural  designations  of  angels,  and  hoio 
far  are  those  designations  expressive  of  tlieir  nature  and  offices  ? 

Good  angels  (for  evil  spirits,  see  Question  15)  are  designated 
in  Scripture  as  to  their  nature,  dignity,  and  power,  as  "spirits," 
Heb.  i  14;  "thrones,  dominions,  principalities,  powers,  mights," 
Eph.  i.  21,  and  Col.  i.  16;  "sons  of  God,"  Luke  xx.  36;  Job  i.  6; 
"mighty  angels,"  and  "powerful  in  strength,"  2  Thess.  i.  7; 
Ps.  ciii.  20;  "holy  angels,"  "elect  angels,"  Luke  ix.  26;  1  Tim. 
v.  21;  and  as  to  the  offices  they  sustain  in  relation  to  God  and 
man,  they  are  designated  as  "angels  or  messengers,"  and  as 
"  ministering  spirits,"  Heb.  i.  13,  14. 

3.  What  were  the  cherubim  ? 

"They  were  ideal  creatures,  compounded  of  four  parts,  those 
namely,  of  a  man,  an  ox,  a  lion,  and  an  eagle."  "The  predomi- 
nant  appearance  was  that  of  a  man,  but  the  number  of  faces, 
feet,  and  hands  differed  according  to  circumstances." — Ezek. 
i  6,  compare  with  Ezek.  xli.  18,  19,  and  Ex.  xxv.  20. 

To  the  same  ideal  beings  is  applied  the  designation  "living 


250  ANGELS. 

creatures"  (Ezek.  i.  5-22;  x.  15,  17;  Rev.  iv.  6-9;  v.  6-14, 
vi.  1-7;  vii.  11;  xiv.  3;  xv.  7;  xix.  4),  rendered  in  our  version 
"  beasts." 

"They  were  symbolical  of  the  highest  properties  of  creature 
life,  and  of  these  as  the  outgoings  and  manifestation  of  the 
divine  life;  but  they  were  typical  of  redeemed  and  glorified 
manhood,  or  prophetical  representations  of  it,  as  that  in  which 
these  properties  were  to  be  combined  and  exhibited. 

"  They  were  appointed  immediately  after  the  fall  to  man's 
original  place  in  the  garden,  and  to  his  office  in  connection 
with  the  tree  of  life." — Gen  iii.  24. 

"The  other  and  more  common  connection  in  which  the 
cherub  appears  is  with  the  throne  or  peculiar  dwelling-place 
of  God.  In  the  holy  of  holies  in  the  tabernacle,  Ex.  xxv.  22, 
he  was  called  the  God  who  dwelleth  between  and  sitteth  upon 
the  cherubim,  1  Sam.  iv.  4;  Ps.  lxxx.  1;  Ezek.  i.  26,  28;  whose 
glory  is  above  the  cherubim.  In  Rev.  iv.  6,  we  read  of  the 
living  creatures  who  were  in  the  midst  of  the  throne  and  around 
about  it." 

"What  does  this  bespeak  but  the  wonderful  fact  brought 
out  in  the  history  of  redemption,  that  man's  nature  is  to  be 
exalted  to  the  dwelling-place  of  the  Godhead?  In  Christ  it 
is  taken,  so  to  speak,  into  the  very  bosom  of  the  Deity;  and 
because  it  is  so  highly  honored  in  him,  it  shall  attain  to  more 
than  angelic  glory  in  his  members." — Fairbairn's  "  Typology," 
Pt.  II.,  Chapter  i.,  Section  3.  See  also  "Imperial  Bible  Dic- 
tionary," Art.  Cherubim. 

4.  What  is  the  etymology  of  the  icord  seraphim,  and  what  is 
taught  in  Scripture  concerning  tJiem  ? 

The  word  signifies  burning,  bright,  dazzling.  It  occurs  in  the 
Bible  only  once. — Isa.  vi.  2,  6.  It  probably  presents,  under  a 
different  aspect,  the  ideal  beings  commonly  designated  cheru- 
bim and  living  creatures. 

5.  7s  there  any  evidence  that  angels  are  of  various  orders  and 
ranks ? 

That  such  distinctions  certainly  exist  appears  evident — 
1st.  From  the  language  of  Scripture.  Gabriel  is  distinguished 
as  one  that  stands  in  the  presence  of  God  (Luke  i.  19),  evi- 
dently in  some  pre-eminent  sense;  and  Michael  as  one  of  the 
chief  princes. — Dan.  x.  13.  Observe  also  the  epithets  archangel, 
thrones,  dominions,  principalities,  powers. — Jude  9;  Eph.  L  21. 
2d.  From  the  analogy  of  the  fallen  angels. — See  Eph.  ii.  2 ;  Matt 
ix.  34.     3d.   From  the  analogy  of  human  society  and  of  the 


THEIR  NUMBER,    POWER,   AND  EMPLOYMENTS.         251 

universal  creation.     Throughout  all  God's  works  gradation  of 
rank  prevails. 

6.  Do  tire  Scriptures  speak  of  more  than  one  archangel,  and  is 
?ie  to  be  considered  a  creature  ? 

This  term  occurs  but  twice  in  the  New  Testament,  and  in 
both  instances  it  is  used  in  the  singular  number,  and  preceded 
by  the  definite  article  5. — 1  Thes.  iv.  16;  Jude  9.  Thus  the  term 
is  evidently  restricted  to  one  person,  called,  Jude  9,  Michael, 
who,  in  Dan.  x.  13,  and  xii.  1,  is  called  "one  of  the  chief 
princes,"  and  "the  great  prince,"  and  in  Rev.  xii.  7,  is  said 
to  have  fought  with  his  angels  against  the  dragon  and  his 
angels. 

Many  suppose  that  the  archangel  is  the  Son  of  God.  Others 
suppose  that  he  is  one  of  the  highest  class  of  creatures,  since  he 
is  called  uone  oftJie  chief  princes  "  Dan.  x.  13;  and  since  divine 
attributes  are  never  ascribed  to  him. 

7.  What  do  the  Scriptures  teach  concerning  the  number  and 
power  of  angels  ? 

1st.  Concerning  their  number,  revelation  determines  only 
that  it  is  very  great.  "Thousand  thousands,  and  ten  thousand 
times  ten  thousand." — Dan.  vii.  10.  "More  than  twelve  legions 
of  angels." — Matt.  xxvi.  53.  "Multitude  of  the  heavenly  host." 
Luke  ii.  13.     "  Myriads  of  angels." — Heb.  xii.  22. 

2d.  Concerning  their  power,  the  Scriptures  teach  that  it  is 
very  great  when  exercised  both  in  the  material  and  in  the  spir- 
itual worlds.  They  are  called  "mighty  angels,"  and  are  said  to 
"excel  in  strength." — 2  Thess.  i.  7;  Ps.  ciii.  20;  2  Kings  xix.  35. 
Their  power,  however,  is  not  creative,  but,  like  that  of  man,  it 
can  be  exercised  only  co-ordinately  with  the  general  laws  of 
nature,  in  the  absolute  sense  of  that  word. 

8.  What  are  their  employments  ? 

1st.  They  behold  the  face  of  God  in  heaven,  adore  the  divine 
perfections,  study  every  revelation  he  makes  of  himself  in  prov- 
idence and  redemption,  and  are  perfectly  blessed  in  his  presence 
and  service. — Matt,  xviii.  10;  Rev.  v.  11;  1  Pet.  i.  12. 

2d.  God  employs  them  as  his  instruments  in  administer- 
ing the  affairs  of  his  providence. — Gen.  xxviii.  12 ;  Dan.  x.  13. 
(1.)  The  law  "was  ordained  by  angels." — Gal.  iii.  19;  Acts  vii. 
53;  Heb.  ii.  2.  (2.)  They  are  instruments  of  good  to  God's 
people. — Heb.  i.  14;  Acts  xii.  7;  Ps.  xci.  10-12.  (3.)  They  ex- 
ecute judgment  upon  God's  enemies. — Acts  xii.  23;  2  Kings 
xix.  35;  1  Chron.  xxi.  16.  (4.)  They  will  officiate  in  the  final 
judgment,  in  separating  the  good  from  the  bad,  in  gathering 


252  ANGELS. 

the  elect,  and  in  bearing  them  up  to  meet  the  Lord  in  the  air 
Matt.  xiii.  30,  39 ;  xxiv.  31 ;  1  Thess.  iv.  17. 

9.  Have  angels  bodies,  and  how  are  tlie  apparitions  of  angels  to 
be  accounted  for  ? 

Angels  are  called  in  the  Scriptures  "spirits"  {itvEvfiara), 
Heb.  i.  14,  a  word  which  is  also  used  to  designate  the  souls  of 
men  when  separate  from  the  body. — 1  Pet.  iii.  19.  There  ia 
however  nothing  in  that  word,  nor  in  the  opinions  of  the  Jews 
at  the  time  of  Christ,  nor  in  any  thing  which  is  told  us  of  the 
nature  or  the  employments  of  angels  in  the  Scriptures,  which 
prove  that  angels  are  absolutely  destitute  of  proper  material 
bodies  of  any  kind.  Indeed  as  the  Son  of  God  is  to  have  "a 
glorious  body,"  "a  spiritual  body"  forever,  and  since  all  the 
redeemed  are  to  have  bodies  like  his,  and  since  the  angels  are 
associated  with  redeemed  men  as  members  of  the  same  infi- 
nitely exalted  kingdom,  it  may  appear  probable  that  angels 
may  have  been  created  with  physical  organizations  not  alto- 
gether dissimilar  to  the  "spiritual  bodies"  of  the  redeemed. 
They  always  appeared  and  spoke  to  men  in  Bible  times  in  the 
bodily  form  of  men,  and  as  such  they  ate  food  and  lodged  in 
houses  like  common  men. — Gen.  xviii.  8  and  xix  3. 

It  has  hence  been  supposed  by  some  that  angels  have 
bodies  like  the  present  "natural"  or  animal  bodies  of  men 
(6(£/ja  ipvxixov),  1  Cor.  xv.  44,  of  flesh,  bones,  and  blood,  of 
head  and  features,  hands  and  feet,  and  that  the  apparition 
of  an  angel  involved  no  change  in  him,  but  only  a  coming 
within  the  sphere  of  the  sense  perception  of  the  observer, 
when  the  angel  appeared  just  as  he  habitually  is. 

Now  this  is  inconsistent  with  the  facts  of  the  inspired  rec- 
ord. In  certain  situations  the  angels  "appeared"  precisely 
like  common  men,  and  in  other  situations  they  acted  very 
differently  (Acts  xii.  7-10;  Num.  xxii.  31),  in  passing  through 
stone  walls,  appearing  and  disappearing  at  will,  etc.  Besides, 
one  of  the  three  men  who  appeared  to  Abraham  at  Marnre, 
and  whose   feet  he  washed,  and  who  ate  the  meat  he  had 

{prepared,  was  Jehovah,  the  second  Person  of  the  Trinity,  who 
lad  no  body  till  he  acquired  it  many  centuries  afterwards  in 
the  womb  of  the  Virgin.  If  the  apparent  human  body  of  the 
one  angel  was  not  a  real,  permanent  human  body,  there  is  not 
ground  to  argue  from  the  recorded  phenomena  that  the  others 
were. — Gen.  xviii.  1-33. 

Besides  this,  the  theory  in  question  indicates  absurd  confu- 
sion of  thought.  The  animal  human  body,  as  we  know  it,  is  a 
physical  organization  in  equilibrium  with  certain  definite  and 
nicely  adjusted  physical  conditions,  and  it  can  exist  only  under 


THE    WORSHIP    OF  ANGELS.  253 

those  conditions.  The  vertebrate  type,  of  which  the  human 
body  is  the  highest  form,  has  been  continually  changed  as  the 
physical  conditions  of  the  globe  have  changed,  and  it  ceases 
always  to  exist  whenever  those  conditions  are  changed  in  any 
decided  degree.  If  it  would  be  absurd  to  conceive  of  a  human 
body  existing  in  water,  or  in  fire,  how  much  more  absurd  is  it 
to  conceive  of  a  warm-blooded,  food-consuming  animal  existing 
indifferently  on  earth  and  in  heaven;  traversing  at  will  the 
interstellar  spaces,  and  as  a  true  cosmopolite  inhabiting  alter- 
nately and  indifferently  all  worlds,  and  all  elements,  ether,  air 
and  water,  and  all  temperatures,  from  the  molten  sun  to  the 
absolue  zero  of  the  starless  void. 

The  bodily  appearance  of  angels,  therefore,  must  have  been 
something  new  assumed,  or  something  pre-existent  and  perma- 
nent greatly  modified  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  them  to  hold, 
upon  occasion,  profitable  intercourse  with  men. 

10.  What  is  the  Romish  doctrine  and  practice  with  regard  to 
the  ivorship  of  angels  ? 

"Catechismus  Romanus,"  hi.  2,  9,  10. — "For  the  Holy  Spirit 
who  says,  Honor  and  glory  unto  the  only  God  (1  Tim.  i.  17),  com- 
mands us  also  to  honor  our  parents  and  elders  (Lev.  xix.  32,  etc.) ; 
and  the  holy  men  who  worshipped  one  God  only  are  also  said 
in  the  sacred  Scriptures  to  have  adored  (Gen.  xxiii.  7,  12,  etc.), 
that  is,  to  have  suppliantly  venerated,  kings.  If  then  kings, 
by  whose  agency  God  governs  the  world,  are  treated  with  so 
high  an  honor,  shall  we  not  give  to  the  angelic  spirits  an  honor 
greater  in  proportion  as  these  blessed  minds  exceed  kings  in 
dignity;  [to  those  angelic  spirits]  whom  God  has  been  pleased 
to  constitute  his  ministers;  whose  services  he  makes  use  of, 
not  only  in  the  government  of  the  Church,  but  also  of  the  rest 
of  the  universe;  by  whose  aid,  although  we  see  them  not,  we 
are  daily  delivered  from  the  greatest  dangers  both  of  soul 
and  body?  Add  to  this  the  charity  with  which  they  love  us, 
through  which,  as  Scripture  informs  us,  they  pour  out  their 
prayers  for  those  countries  (Dan.  ii.  13)  over  which  they  are 
placed  by  Providence,  and  for  those  too,  no  doubt,  whose 
guardians  they  are,  for  they  present  our  prayers  and  tears 
before  the  throne  of  God  (Job  hi.  25;  xii.  12;  Rev.  viii.  3). 
Hence  our  Lord  has  taught  us  in  the  gospel  not  to  scandalize 
the  little  ones,  because  in  heaven  their  angels  do  alivays  behold  tint 
face  of  his  Father  which  is  in  heaven. 

"Their  intercession,  therefore,  we  must  invoke,  because  they 
always  behold  God,  and  receive  from  him  the  most  willing  ad- 
vocacy of  our  salvation.  To  this,  their  invocation,  the  sacred 
Scriptures  bear  testimony. — Gen.  xlviii.  15,  16." 


254  ANGELS. 

11.  What  views  have  been  entertained  with  respect  to  H  Guar- 
dian Angels"? 

"It  was  a  favorite  opinion  of  the  Christian  Fathers  that 
every  individual  is  under  the  care  of  a  particular  angel,  who 
is  assigned  to  him  as  a  guardian.  They  spoke  also  of  two 
angels, — the  one  good,  the  other  evil, — whom  they  conceived 
to  be  attendant  on  each  individual:  the  good  angel  prompting 
to  all  good,  and  averting  ill ;  and  the  evil  angel  prompting  to 
all  ill,  and  averting  good  (Hennas  xi.  6).  The  Jews  (except- 
ing the  Sadducees)  entertained  this  belief,  as  do  the  Moslems. 
The  heathen  held  it  in  a  modified  form — the  Greeks  having 
their  tutelary  daemon,  and  the  Romans  their  genius.  There 
is  however  nothing  to  support  this  notion  in  the  Bible.  The 
passages  usually  referred  to  for  its  support  (Ps.  xxxiv.  7 ;  Matt, 
xviii.  10),  have  assuredly  no  such  meaning.     The  former  sim- 

Ely  denotes  that  God  employs  the  ministry  of  angels  to  deliver 
is  people  from  affliction  and  danger;  and  the  celebrated  pas- 
sage in  Matthew  means  that  the  infant  children  of  believers, 
or  the  least  among  the  disciples  of  Christ,  whom  the  ministers 
of  the  church  might  be  disposed  to  neglect,  are  in  such  esti- 
mation elsewhere,  that  angels  do  not  think  it  below  their 
dignity  to  minister  unto  them."  Nothing  is  said  of  the  per- 
sonal assignment  of  angels  to  individual  men. — Kitto's  "Bib. 
Encyclo." 

12.  What  are  the  names  by  which  Satan  is  distinguished,  and 
what  is  tJieir  import? 

Satan,  which  signifies  adversary,  Luke  x.  18.  The  Devil 
[SidfioXos  always  occurs  in  the  singular)  signifying  slanderer, 
Rev.  xx.  2;  Apollyon,  which  means  destroyer,  and  Abbadon, 
Rev.  ix.  11;  Beelzebub,  the  prince  of  devils,  from  the  god  of 
the  Ekronites,  chief  among  the  heathen  divinities,  all  of  which 
the  Jews  regarded  as  devils,  2  Kings  i.  2;  Matt  xii.  24;  Angel 
of  the  Bottomless  Pit,  Rev.  ix.  11;  Prince  of  the  World,  John 
xii.  31 ;  Prince  of  Darkness,  Eph.  vi.  12  ;  A  Roaring  Lion,  1 
Pet.  v.  8;  a  Sinner  from  the  Beginning,  1  John  hi.  8;  Accuser, 
Kev.  xii.  10 ;  Belial,  2  Cor.  vi.  15 ;  Deceiver,  Rev.  xx.  10 ;  Dragon, 
Rev.  xii.  7;  Liar  and  Murderer,  John  viii.  44;  Leviathan,  Is. 
xxvii.  1;  Lucifer,  Is.  xiv.  12;  Serpent,  Is.  xxvii.  1;  Tormentor, 
Matt,  xviii.  34;  God  of  this  World,  2  Cor.  iv.  4;  he  that  hath 
the  Power  of  Death,  Heb.  ii.  14. — See  Cruden's  "  Concordance." 

13.  How  may  it  be  proved  that  Satan  is  a  personal  being,  and 
nit  a  mere  personification  of  evil? 

Throughout   all   the  various   books  of  Scripture  Satan  is 


WICKED   ANGELS.  255 

always  consistently  spoken  of  as  a  person,  and  personal  at- 
tributes are  predicated  of  him.  Such  passages  as  Matt.  iv. 
1-11,  and  John  viii.  44,  are  decisive. 

14.  What  do  the  Scriptures  teach  concerning  tJie  relation  of 
Satan  to  otJier  evil  spirits  and  to  our  world  ? 

Other  evil  spirits  are  called  "his  angels,"  Matt.  xxv.  41; 
and  he  is  called  "Prince  of  Devils,"  Matt.  ix.  34;  and  "Prince 
of  the  powers  of  the  Air,"  and  "Prince  of  Darkness,"  Eph. 
vi.  12.     This  indicates  that  he  is  the  master  spirit  of  evil. 

His  relation  to  this  world  is  indicated  by  the  history  of  the 
Fall,  2  Cor.  xi.  3 ;  Rev.  xii.  9,  and  by  such  expressions  as  "  God 
of  this  World,"  2  Cor.  iv.  4;  and  "Spirit  that  worketh  in  the 
children  of  disobedience,"  Eph.  ii.  2;  wicked  men  are  said  to 
be  his  children,  1  John  hi.  10;  he  blinds  the  minds  of  those 
that  believe  not  and  leads  them  captive  at  his  will,  2  Tim. 
ii.  26;  he  also  pains,  harasses,  and  tempts  God's  true  people 
as  far  as  is  permitted  for  their  ultimate  good. — Luke  xxii.  31 ; 
2  Cor.  xii.  7;  1  Thess.  ii.  18. 

15.  What  are  the  terms  by  tohich  fallen  spirits  are  designated? 

The  Greek  word  6  SidfioXot,  the  devil,  is  in  the  original  ap- 
plied only  to  Beelzebub.  Other  evil  spirits  are  called  Saijuoves, 
daemons,  Mark  v.  12  (translated  devils) ;  unclean  spirits,  Mark 
v.  13;  angels  of  the  devil,  Matt.  xxv.  41;  principalities,  powers, 
rulers  of  the  darkness  of  this  world,  Eph.  vi.  12;  angels  that 
sinned,  2  Pet.  ii.  4;  angels  that  kept  not  their  first  estate, 
but  left  their  own  habitation,  Jude  vi. ;  lying  spirits,  2  Chron. 
xviii.  22. 

16.  What  power  or  agency  over  the  bodies  and  souls  of  men  is 
ascribed  to  them  ? 

Satan,  like  all  other  finite  beings,  can  only  be  in  one  place 
at  a  time ;  yet  all  that  is  done  by  his  agents  being  attributed 
to  him,  he  appears  to  be  practically  ubiquitous. 

It  is  certain  that  at  times  at  least  they  have  exercised  an 
inexplicable  influence  over  the  bodies  of  men,  yet  that  influence 
is  entirely  subject  to  God's  control. — Job  ii.  7;  Luke  xiii.  16; 
Acts  x.  38.  They  have  caused  and  aggravated  diseases,  and 
excited  appetites  and  passions. — 1  Cor.  v.  5.  Satan,  in  some 
sense,  has  the  power  of  death. — Heb.  ii.  14. 

With  respect  to  the  souls  of  men,  Satan  and  his  angels  are 
utterly  destitute  of  any  power  either  to  change  the  heart  or  to 
coerce  the  will,  their  influence  being  simply  moral,  and  exer- 
cised in  the  way  of  deception,  suggestion,  and  persuasion.  The 
descriptive  phrases  applied  by  the  Scriptures  to  their  working 


256  ANGELS. 

are  such  as — "the  deceivableness  of  unrighteousness,"  "power, 
signs,  lying  wonders,"  2  Thess.  ii.  9,  10;  he  "transforms  him- 
self into  an  angel  of  light." — 2  Cor.  xi.  14.  If  he  can  deceive 
or  persuade  he  uses  "wiles,"  Eph.  vi.  11;  "snares,"  1  Tim.  iii.  7; 
"depths,"  Rev.  ii.  24;  he  "blinds  the  mind,"  2  Cor.  iv.  4;  "leads 
captive  the  will,"  2  Tim.  ii.  26;  and  so  "deceives  the  whole 
world." — Rev.  xii.  9.  If  he  can  not  persuade  he  uses  "fiery 
darts,"  Eph.  vi.  16;  and  "buffetings." — 2  Cor.  xii.  7. 

As  examples  of  his  influence  in  tempting  men  to  sin  the 
Scriptures  cite  the  case  of  Adam,  Gen  iii. ;  of  David,  1  Chron. 
xxi.  1;  of  Judas,  Luke  xxii.  3;  Ananias  and  Sapphira,  Acts  v.  3, 
and  the  temptation  of  our  blessed  Lord,  Matt.  iv. 

17.  What  evidence  is  there  that  the  heathen  worship  devils  ? 

"The  8a.itxa>v  is  the  object  of  their  worship,  SEidiSaiuoovia 
describes  their  worship  itself,  and  8Ei6i8aijj.Gov  the  worshipper." 
Paid  (Acts  xvii.  22)  declared  that  the  men  of  Athens  were 
SEidiSatjuovedre'povS,  i.  e.,  too  much  addicted  to  demon-worship. 
David  says  (Ps.  cvi.  37),  "The  gods  of  the  heathen  are  demons," 
and  Paul  (1  Cor.  x.  20),  "The  things  which  the  Gentiles  sacri- 
fice, they  sacrifice  to  demons  and  not  to  God."  Moses  said  of 
apostate  Israelites  (Deut.  xxxii.  17),  "They  sacrificed  to  demons 
and  not  to  God,  to  gods  whom  they  knew  not;  to  new  gods 
that  came  newly  up;  whom  your  fathers  feared  not." — "The 
Imperial  Bible  Dictionary." 

18.  Where  do  they  reside,  and  ivhat  is  the  true  interpretation 
of  Eph.  ii.  2,  and  vi.  12  ? 

These  passages  simply  declare  that  evil  spirits  belong  to  the 
unseen  spiritual  world,  and  not  to  our  mundane  system.  Noth- 
ing is  taught  us  in  Scripture  as  to  the  place  of  their  residence, 
further  than  that  they  originally  dwelt  in  and  fell  from  heaven, 
that  they  now  have  access  to  men  on  earth,  and  that  they  will 
be  finally  sealed  up  in  the  lake  of  fire  prepared  for  them. — Rev. 
xx.  10;  Matt.  xxv.  41. 

19.  By  what  terms  were  those  possessed  by  evil  spirits  designated? 

They  are  called  "demoniacs,"  translated  possessed  with  d<  vils, 
Matt,  iv.  24;  "having  the  spirit  of  an  unclean  devil,"  Luke  iv.  33; 
"oppressed  of  the  devil,"  Acts  x.  38;  "  lunatics,"  Matt.  xvii.  15. 

20.  What  arguments  are  urged  by  those  who  regard  the  de- 
moniacs mentioned  in  tlie  Neio  Testament  as  simply  diseased  or 
deranged  ? 

That  we  can  not  discriminate  between  the  effects  of  demoni- 


DEMONIACAL    POSSESSION.  257 

acal  possession  and  disease.  That  precisely  the  same  symptoms 
have,  in  other  cases,  been  treated  as  disease  and  cured. 

That,  like  witchcraft,  the  experience  of  such  possessions  haa 
been  confined  to  the  most  ignorant  ages  of  the  world. 

They  argue  further  that  this  doctrine  is  inconsistent  with 
clearly  revealed  principles.  1st.  That  the  souls  of  dead  men  go 
immediately  either  to  heaven  or  hell.  2d.  That  fallen  angels 
are  already  shut  up  in  chains  and  darkness  in  expectation  of 
the  final  judgment. — 2  Pet.  ii.  4 ;  Jude  6. 

They  attempt  to  explain  away  the  language  of  Christ  and 
his  apostles  upon  this  subject  by  affirming,  that  as  it  was  no 
part  of  their  design  to  instruct  men  in  the  true  science  of  nature 
or  disease,  they  conformed  their  language  on  such  subjects  to 
the  prevalent  opinions  of  the  people  they  addressed,  calling 
diseases  by  the  popular  name,  without  intending  thereby  to 
countenance  the  theory  of  the  nature  of  the  disease,  out  of 
which  the  name  originated.  Just  as  we  now  call  crazed  peo- 
ple "  lunatics,"  without  believing  in  the  influence  of  the  moon 
upon  them. — "  Kitto's  Bib.  Ency." 

21.  How  may  it  be  proved  that  the  demoniacs  of  the  New  Testa 
merit  were  really  possessed  of  evil  spirits  ? 

The  simple  narratives  of  all  the  evangelists  put  it  beyond 
peradventure  that  Christ  and  his  apostles  did  believe,  and 
wished  others  to  believe,  that  the  demoniacs  were  really  pos- 
sessed with  devils. 

They  distinguish  between  possession  and  disease. — Mark 
l  32;  Luke  vi.  17,  18. 

The  "  daemons,"  as  distinct  from  the  "  possessed,"  spoke 
(Mark.  v.  12),  were  addressed,  commanded,  and  rebuked  by 
Christ.— Mark  i.  25,  34;  ix.  25;  Matt.  viii.  32;  xvii.  18.  Their 
desires,  requests,  and  passions  are  distinguished  from  those  of 
the  possessed. — Matt.  viii.  31;  Mark  ix.  26,  etc.  The  number 
of  daemons  in  one  person  is  mentioned. — Mark  xvi.  9.  They 
went  out  of  the  "possessed"  into  the  swine. — Luke  viiL  32. 
We  never  speak  of  the  moon  entering  into,  and  sore  vexing 
a  man,  or  being  cast  out  of  a  lunatic,  or  of  the  moon  crying 
aloud,  etc.  The  argument  of  those  who  would  explain  away 
the  force  of  Christ's  language  on  this  subject,  therefore  fails. 


CHAPTER    XIV. 

PROVIDENCE. 

1.  What  is  the  etymology  and  technical  usage  of  the  term  Prov- 
idence, and  what  is  the  relation  which  Providence  sustains  to  GodCs 
eternal  Decree  ? 

Providence,  from  pro  and  video,  literally  means  foresight, 
and  then  a  careful  arrangement  prepared  beforehand  for  the 
accomplishment  of  predetermined  ends.  Turretin  defines  this 
term  as  in  its  widest  sense  including  (a)  foreknowledge,  (b)  fore- 
ordination,  and  (c)  the  efficacious  administration  of  the  thing 
decreed.  In  the  technical  theological  as  well  as  in  the  com- 
mon usage  of  the  word,  however,  it  is  restricted  to  the  last 
sense,  namely  the  execution  by  God  of  his  eternal  decree  in 
time,  by  means  of  the  second  causes  he  has  originated  in  crea- 
tion. Foreordination  gives  the  plan  and  is  eternal,  all-com- 
prehensive, and  unchangeable.  Creation  gives  the  absolute 
commencement  of  things  in  time.  Providence  includes  the 
two  great  departments  (a)  of  the  continued  Preservation  of  all 
things  as  created,  and  (b)  of  the  continued  Government  of  all 
things  thus  preserved,  so  that  all  the  ends  for  which  they 
were  created,  are  infallibly  accomplished. — See  "Conf.  Faith," 
chap,  v.,  and  "  L.  Cat,"  Q.  18,  and  "  S.  Cat.,"  Q.  11. 

2.  State  the  true  doctrine  of  Preservation. 

Turretin  says,  L.  6,  Ques.  4. — "Conservatio  est,  qua  Deus 
creaturas  omnes  in  statu  suo  conservat,  quod  fit  conserva- 
tione  essentia  in  speciebus,  existential  in  individuis,  et  virtutis 
in  operationes." 

Preservation  is  that  continued  exercise  of  the  divine  energy 
whereby  the  Creator  upholds  all  his  creatures  in  being,  and  in 
the  possession  of  all  those  inherent  properties  and  qualities 
with  which  he  endowed  them  at  their  creation,  and  of  those 
also  which  they  may  subsequently  have  acquired  by  l^abit  or 
development.     That  is,  both  the  being,  the  attributes  of  every 


rRESER  VA  TION.  259 

species,  and  the  form  and  faculties  of  every  individual  are  con- 
stantly preserved  in  being  by  God. 

3.  State  the  arguments  which  establish  the  conclusion  that  a  con- 
stant exercise  of  divine  energy  is  essential/or  the  preservation  of 
aU  creatures. 

1st.  This  truth  appears  to  be  involved  in  the  very  concep- 
tion of  a  creature  in  his  dependent  relation  to  his  Creator.  The 
creature  is  one  who  has  the  whole  ground  of  his  being  in  the 
will  of  his  Creator.  Being  thus  absolutely  dependent,  he  can 
no  more  continue  than  he  can  originate  his  own  being. 

2d.  This  is  implied  in  the  sense  of  absolute  dependence,  which 
is  an  essential  element  of  the  religious  sentiment  which  is  an 
invariable  characteristic  of  human  nature. 

3d.  It  is  taught  in  Scripture.  "  In  him  we  live  and  move 
and  have  our  being." — Acts  xvii.  28.  "  By  him  all  things  con- 
sist."— Col.  i.  17.  "  Upholding  all  things  by  the  word  of  his 
power."— Heb.  i.  3;  Neh.  ix.  6;  Ps.  lxiii.  8;  lxix.  8,  9. 

4.  State  the  Deistic  and  nationalistic  view  as  to  Uie  nature  of 
Preservation, 

They  regard  the  action  of  God  in  the  matter  of  the  con- 
tinued preservation  of  the  creature  as  merely  negative — a  not 
•willing  to  destroy.  This  view  represents  the  Creator  as  exte- 
rior to  his  creation  in  the  same  manner  in  which  a  mechanician 
is  exterior  to  the  machine  he  has  made  and  set  in  motion.  It 
regards  the  system  of  second  causes  as  dependent  upon  the 
great  First  Cause  only  at  the  beginning  of  the  long  line,  in  the 
indefinitely  remote  past.  They  maintain  that  in  the  beginning 
God  created  all  things  and  endowed  them  severally  with  their 
active  powers  as  second  causes,  and  adjusted  them  in  a  bal- 
anced system,  but  then  left  them  to  act,  independently  of  all 
support  or  direction  from  without,  according  to  their  nature,  in 
their  relations,  as  a  man  may  leave  a  wound  up-clock. 

5.  State  the  objections  to  that  vietu. 

1st.  This  view,  as  above  shown,  is  inconsistent  with  the  es- 
sential relation  of  the  creature  as  an  effect  to  the  Creator  as  a 
cause.  God  is  the  only  ens  a  seipso.  The  only  cause  of  the 
creature's  being  is  the  will  of  the  Creator.  As  long  as  he  so 
wills  that  cause  exists.  If  he  should  cease  so  to  will  the  cause 
would  be  vacated  and  the  effect  consequently  cease. 

2d.  This  view  is  to  an  unworthy  degree  anthropomorphic. 
It  involves  a  deplorably  unintellectual  failure  to  apprehend 
the  essential  difference  between  the  relation  to  the  creation 
sustained  by  God,  and  that  sustained  by  man  to  the  work  of 


2G0  PROVIDENCE. 

his  hand.  A  man  is  necessarily  exterior  to  his  work,  and  even 
when  present  capable  of  directing  his  attention  only  to  one 
point  at  a  time.  But  God  is  omnipresent,  not  as  to  his  essence 
only,  but  as  to  his  infinite  knowledge,  wisdom,  love,  righteous- 
ness, and  power,  with  every  atom  of  creation  for  every  instant 
of  duration.  The  creature  is  always  interpenetrated  as  well 
as  embraced  in  the  divine  thought  and  will,  and  ever  is  what 
it  is  and  as  it  is  because  of  God. 

3d.  This  view  obviously  removes  God  so  far  from  the  crea- 
tion as  to  be  irreligious  in  its  practical  effect.  This  also  has 
been  uniformly  its  influence  as  historically  ascertained. 

4th.  It  is  obviously  opposed  to  the  entire  spirit  of  the  Script- 
ures, and  to  those  special  texts  above  quoted. 

6.  State  the  view  as  to  the  nature  of  the  divine  agency  involved 
in  Preservation,  tvhich  stands  at  tJie  opposite  extreme  to  the  above. 

The  extreme  position  opposite  to  the  Deistical  one  above 
stated  is  that  Preservation  is  a  continued  creation.  That  crea- 
tures or  second  causes  have  no  real  continuous  existence,  but 
are  reproduced  every  successive  moment  out  of  nothing,  in 
their  respective  successive  states,  conditions,  and  actions  by 
the  perpetual  efflux  of  the  "vis  creatrix"  of  God.  Thus  the 
state  or  action  of  any  created  thing  in  one  moment  of  time 
has  no  causal  relation  to  its  state  or  action  in  another  momentf 
but  the  sole,  perpetual,  and  immediate  cause  of  all  that  exists 
is  God  himself. 

The  foundations  of  this  doctrine  were  first  laid  by  Des 
Cartes  in  his  views  of  the  relation  of  the  creation  to  the  Creator, 
viewing  the  former  as  sustained  by  the  latter  by  a  continued 
creation.  These  views  were  pushed  to  the  furthest  extreme 
consistent  with  Theism  by  Malebranche,  in  the  doctrine  of 
"Occasional  Causes,"  and  of  "our  seeing  all  things  in  God," 
and  were  carried  to  their  legitimate,  logical  conclusion,  in 
absolute  pantheism  by  Spinoza. — Morell's  "Hist,  of  Modern 
Philosophy,"  Part  I.,  ch.  2,  §  1. 

President  Edwards  teaches  the  same  doctrine  incidentally 
in  his  great  work  on  "  Original  Sin,"  Part  IV.,  ch.  3.  He  says 
that  the  existence  either  of  the  substance,  or  of  the  mode,  or  of 
the  action  of  any  created  thing  in  any  one  moment  of  time  has 
no  causal  connection  with  its  existence,  state,  or  action  the 
next  moment.  He  says  that  what  we  call  "  course  of  nature  is 
nothing  separate  from  the  agency  of  God."  He  illustrates  his 
doctrine  thus:  "The  images  of  things  in  a  glass,  as  we  keep  our 
eye  upon  them,  seem  to  remain  precisely  the  same,  with  a  con- 
tinuing perfect  identity.  But  it  is  known  to  be  otherwise. 
Philosophers  well  know  that  these  images  are  constantly  re- 


PRESER  VA  TION.  263 

newed,  by  the  impression  and  reflection  of  new  rays  of  light; 
so  that  the  image  impressed  by  former  rays  is  constantly  vanish- 
ing, and  a  new  image  impressed  by  new  rays  every  moment, 
both  on  the  glass  and  on  the  eye  ....  The  image  that 
exists  this  moment  is  not  at  all  derived  from  the  image  which 
existed  the  last  preceding  moment the  past  exist- 
ence of  the  image  has  no  influence  to  uphold  it  so  much  as  for 
one  moment  .  .  .  So  it  is  with  bodies  as  well  as  images 
.  .  .  .  their  present  existence  is  not,  strictly  speaking,  the 
effect  of  their  past  existence,  but  it  is  wholly,  every  instant, 
the  effect  of  a  new  agency,  or  exertion  of  the  powerful  cause 
of  their  existence." 

7.  Show  that  this  doctrine  is  false  and  dangerous. 

1st.  If  God  is  continually  creating  anew  every  creature  in 
every  moment  of  time  in  its  successive  states  and  actions,  and 
if  the  state  or  act  of  the  creature  in  one  moment  has  no  causal 
relation  to  its  state  or  act  in  the  next  moment,  it  is  evident 
that  second  causes  are  only  modifications  of  the  First  Cause, 
and  that  God  is  the  only  real  Agent  in  the  universe,  and  the 
immediate  and  sole  cause  of  whatever  comes  to  pass.  This 
obviously  logically  involves  Pantheism,  and  as  a  historical 
fact  leads  to  its  adoption. 
1  2d.  It  is  inconsistent  with  our  original  and  necessary  intui- 
tions of  truth  of  all  kinds,  physical,  intellectual,  and  moral.  Our 
original  intuitions  assure  us  of  the  real  and  permanent  exist- 
ence of  spiritual  and  material  substances  exercising  powers, 
and  of  our  own  spirits  as  real,  self-determining  causes  of  action, 
and  consequently  as  responsible  moral  agents.  But  if  this 
doctrine  is  true  these  primary,  constitutional  intuitions  of  our 
nature  deceive  us,  and  if  these  deceive  us,  the  whole  universe 
is  an  illusion,  our  own  natures  a  delusion,  and  absolute  skep- 
ticism inevitable. 

3d.  It  immediately  cuts  up  by  the  roots  the  foundations 
of  free  agency,  moral  accountability,  moral  government,  and 
hence  of  religion. 

8.  Slate  the  several  points  in  the  true  doctrine  of  Providential 
Preservation. 

The  true  view  stands  intermediate  between  the  two  ex- 
tremes above  stated.     It  involves  the  following  propositions: 

1st.  Created  substances,  both  spiritual  and  material,  possess 
real  and  permanent  existence,  i.  e.,  they  are  real  entities. 

2d.  They  possess  all  such  active  or  passive  properties  as 
tlu'y  have  been  severally  endowed  with  by  God. 

3d.  The  properties  or  active  powers  have  a  real,  and  not 


2G2  PROVIDENCE. 

merely  apparent,  efficiency  as  second  causes  in  producing  the 
effects  proper  to  them ;  and  the  phenomena  alike  of  conscious- 
ness and  of  the  outward  world  are  really  produced  by  the  effi- 
cient agency  of  second  causes,  as  we  are  informed  by  our  native 
and  necessary  intuitions. 

4th.  But  these  created  substances  are  not  self-existent,  i.  e., 
the  ground  of  their  continued  existence  is  in  God  and  not  in 
themselves. 

5th.  They  continue  to  exist  not  merely  in  virtue  of  a  nega- 
tive act  of  God,  whereby  he  merely  does  not  will  their  destruc- 
tion, but  in  virtue  of  a  positive,  continued  exercise  of  divine 
power,  whereby  they  are  sustained  in  being,  and  in  the  posses- 
sion of  all  their  properties  and  powers  with  which  God  has 
endowed  them. 

6th.  The  precise  nature  of  the  divine  action  concerned  in 
upholding  all  things  in  being  and  action  is,  like  every  mode  of 
the  intercourse  of  the  infinite  with  the  finite,  inscrutable — but 
not  more  mysterious  in  this  case  than  in  every  other. — Dr. 
Charles  Hodge's  "  Lectures." 

9.  How  may  tJie  Scriptural  doctrine  of  Providential  Govern- 
ment be  stated  ? 

God  having  from  eternity  absolutely  decreed  whatsoever 
comes  to  pass,  and  having  in  the  beginning  created  all  things 
out  of  nothing  by  the  word  of  his  power,  and  continuing  sub- 
sequently constantly  present  to  every  atom  of  his  creation, 
upholding  all  things  in  being  and  in  the  possession  and  exercise 
of  all  their  properties,  he  also  continually  controls  and  directs 
the  actions  of  all  his  creatures  thus  preserved,  so  that  while  he 
never  violates  the  law  of  their  several  natures,  he  yet  infallibly 
causes  all  actions  and  events  singular  and  universal  to  occur 
according  to  the  eternal  and  immutable  plan  embraced  in  his 
decree.  There  is  a  design  in  providence.  God  has  chosen  his 
great  end,  the  manifestation  of  his  own  glory,  but  in  order  to 
that  end  he  has  chosen  innumerable  subordinate  ends;  these 
are  fixed;  and  he  has  appointed  all  actions  and  events  in  their 
several  relations  as  means  to  those  ends;  and  he  continually  so 
directs  the  actions  of  all  creatures  that  all  these  general  and 
special  ends  are  brought  to  pass  precisely  at  the  time,  by  the 
means,  and  in  the  mode  and  under  the  conditions,  which  he  from 
eternity  proposed. 

Turretin,  L.  6,  Quaes.  1,  says,  "The  term  Providence  em- 
braces three  things  itp6yvw6iv,  7tp60s6iv  et  Siotur/diy — the  cog- 
nition of  the  mind,  the  decree  of  the  will,  and  the  efficacious 
administration  of  the  things  decreed — knowledge  directing,  will 
commanding,  and  power  executing.    .    .    .    Hence  Providence 


PROVIDENTIAL    GOVERNMENT  PROVED.  263 

may  be  regarded  either  in  the  antecedent  decree,  or  in  the 
subsequent  execution ;  the  first  is  the  eternal  destination  of  all 
things  to  their  appointed  ends ;  the  second  is  the  temporal  gov- 
ernment of  all  things  according  to  that  decree ;  the  first  is  an 
act  immanent  within  God;  the  second  is  an  act  transient  out  of 
God.  We  here  treat  for  the  most  part  of  Providence  in  the 
second  sense  of  the  term." 

"Conf.  of  Faith,"  Chap,  v.;  "L.  Cat,"  Q.  18;  «S.  Cat,"  Q.  11. 

10.  State  the  proof  of  the  fact  of  such  a  universal  Government 
derived  from  a  consideration  of  tlie  divine,  perfections. 

1st  The  stupendous  fact  that  God  is  infinite  in  his  being, 
in  his  relation  to  time  and  space,  and  in  his  wisdom  and  power, 
makes  it  evident  that  a  universal  providence  is  possible  to  him, 
and  that  all  the  difficulties  and  apparent  contradictions  involved 
therein  to  the  eye  of  man  are  to  be  referred  to  our  very  limited 
capacity  of  understanding. 

2d.  God's  infinite  wisdom  makes  it  certain  that  he  had  a 
definite  object  in  view  in  the  creation  of  the  universe,  and  that 
he  will  not  fail  in  the  use  of  the  best  means  to  secure  that 
object  in  all  its  parts. 

3d.  His  infinite  goodness  makes  it  certain  that  he  would 
not  leave  his  sensitive  and  intelligent  creatures  to  the  toils  of 
a  mechanical,  soulless  fate;  nor  his  religious  creatures  to  be 
divorced  from  himself,  in  whose  communion  their  highest  life 
consists. 

4th.  His  infinite  righteousness  makes  it  certain  that  he  will 
continue  to  govern  and  reward  and  punish  those  creatures 
which  he  has  made  subject  to  moral  obligations. 

11.  State  the  argument  derived  from  the  innate  religious  consti- 
tution of  mankind. 

The  religious  sentiment  when  analyzed  is  found  to  embrace 
(a)  a  sense  of  absolute  dependence,  and  (6)  a  sense  of  immediate 
moral  accountability.  The  sense  of  absolute  dependence  naturally 
and  actually  leads  all  men  of  all  nations  and  conditions  to  cling 
to  the  conviction  of  the  immediate  presence  and  providential 
control  of  God  throughout  the  universe  and  in  every  event. 
To  be  without  God  in  the  world  is  to  be  in  a  condition  in 
which  the  elementary  demands  of  human  nature  are  denied. 
The  sense  of  moral  accountability  leads  all  men  to  believe  in  a 
universal  and  supreme  moral  government  present  in  the  world, 
protecting  the  good,  and  restraining  and  punishing  the  wicked. 
If  God  is  not  actually  and  immediately  present  in  nature  and 
in  human  history,  then  we  can  not  know  him,  and  he  neither 
controls  rnr  protects  us,  and  hence  obedience  is  neither  due 


2G1  PROVIDENCE. 

nor  possible,  and  morality,  religion,  and  prayer  are  all  alike 
vain  delusions. 

12.  State  the  argument  from  the  intelligence  evinced  in  the  opera 
tions  of  nature. 

The  great  inductive  argument  for  the  being  of  God  is  based 
upon  the  evident  traces  of  design  in  the  universe.  Now,  just 
as  the  traces  of  design  in  the  constitution  of  nature  proves  the 
existence  of  a  designing  mind  in  the  relation  of  creator,  so  the 
traces  of  design  in  the  operations  of  nature  prove  the  existence 
of  a  designing  mind  in  the  relation  of  providential  ruler. 

The  material  elements,  with  their  active  properties,  are  all 
incapable  of  design,  yet  we  find  all  these  elements  so  adjusted 
in  all  their  proportions  and  relations  as  to  work  harmoniously 
in  the  order  of  certain  general  laws,  and  we  find  these  general 
laws  so  adjusted  in  all  their  intricate  coincidences  and  interfer- 
ences, as,  by  movements  simple  and  complex,  fortuitous  and 
regular,  to  work  out  harmoniously  everywhere  the  most  wisely 
and  beneficently  contrived  results.  The  mechanical  and  chem- 
ical properties  of  material  atoms;  the  laws  of  vegetable  and 
animal  life;  the  movements  of  the  sun,  moon,  and  stars  in  the 
heavens;  the  luminous,  calorific,  and  chemical  radiance  of  the 
sun;  and  the  instinctive  and  voluntary  movement  of  every 
living  thing  upon  the  face  of  the  earth,  are  all  mutually  acting 
and  reacting  without  concert  or  possible  design  of  their  own ; 
yet  everywhere  bringing  forth  the  most  wise  and  beneficent 
results.  As  the  designing  mind  can  not  be  found  in  any  of  the 
elements  it,  of  course,  can  not  be  found  in  the  resultant  of  the 
whole  together.  It  can  be  looked  for  only  in  a  present  personal 
God,  all-wise  and  all-powerful,  who  directs  all  things  by  the 
present  exercise  of  his  intelligent  power  in  and  through  the 
creature. 

13.  How  may  this  doctrine  he  established  by  the  evidence  afforded 
by  the  general  history  of  the  world? 

If  the  constitution  of  human  nature  (soul  and  body),  in  its 
elemental  relations  to  human  society,  proves  a  designing  mind 
in  the  relation  of  creator,  exactly  so  must  the  wisely  contrived 
res  nils  of  human  association,  in  general  and  in  individual  in- 
stances, prove  the  exercise  of  a  designing  mind  in  the  relation 
of  providential  ruler. 

Individual  m'en  and  communities,  it  is  true,  differ  in  their 
action  from  the  elements  of  the  external  world,  inasmuch  as 
they  act,  1st,  freely,  self-moved;  and  2d,  from  design.  Yet  so 
narrow  is  the  sphere  both  of  the  foresight  and  the  design  of 
every  individual  agent,  so  great  is  the  multiplicity  of  agents, 


PROVIDENTIAL    GOVERNMENT  PROVED.  2G5 

and  the  complications  of  interacting  influences  upon  each  com- 
munity from  within,  from  every  other  community,  and  from  the 
powers  of  external  nature,  that  the  designs  of  either  individuals 
or  communities  are  never  carried  beyond  a  short  distance,  when 
they  are  lost  in  the  general  current,  the  result  of  which  lies 
equally  beyond  the  foreknowledge  and  the  control  of  all.  But 
the  student  of  history,  with  the  key  of  revelation,  clearly  dis- 
cerns the  traces  of  a  general  design  running  through  all  the 
grand  procedures  of  human  history,  and  at  points  even  visibly 
linking  itself  with  the  actions  of  individual  agents.  God's  provi- 
dence, as  a  whole,  therefore,  comprehends  and  controls  the  little 
providences  of  men. 

14.  State  the  Scriptural  argument  from  the  prophecies,  prom- 
ises, and  threatenings  of  God. 

In  innumerable  instances  has  God  in  the  Scriptures  proph- 
esied with  great  particularity  the  certain  occurrence  of  an  event 
absolutely,  and  he  has  promised  or  threatened  the  occurrence 
of  other  events  contingently  upon  certain  conditions.  This 
would  be  a  mockery,  if  God  did  not  use  the  means  to  fulfil  his 
word. 

It  is  not  reasonable  to  object  that  God  simply  foresaw  the 
event,  and  so  prophesied,  promised,  or  threatened  it,  because 
the  event  is  frequently  promised  or  threatened  contingently, 
upon  a  condition  which  does  not  stand  in  the  relation  of  a 
cause  to  that  event.  God  could  not  foresee  one  event  as  con- 
tingent upon  another  which  sustains  no  causal  relation  to  it. 
The  truth  of  the  promise  or  threatening  in  such  a  case  can  not 
depend  upon  the  natural  connection  between  the  two  events, 
but  upon  God's  determination  to  cause  one  to  follow  the  other. 

15.  Prove  from  Scripture  that  tlie  providence  of  God  extends 
over  tJie  natural  icorld. 

Ps.  civ.  14;  exxxv.  5-7;  cxlvii.  8-18 ;  cxlviii.  7,  8;  Jobix.  5,  6; 
xxi.  9-11;  xxxvii.  6-13;  Acts  xiv.  17. 

16.  Prove  from  Scripture  that  it  includes  the  brute  creation. 
Ps.  civ.  21-29;  cxlvii.  9;  Matt.  vi.  26;  x.  29. 

17.  Prove  from  Scripture  that  it  extends  to  the  general  affairs 
of  men. 

1  Chron.  xvi.  31;  Ps.  xlvii.  7;  lxvi.  7;  Prov.  xxi.  1;  Job 
xii.  23;  Isa.  x.  12-15;  Dan.  ii.  21;  iv.  25. 

18.  Shoio from  Scripture  that  the  circumstances  of  individuals 
are  controlled  by  God. 


26G  PROVIDENCE. 

1  Sam.  ii.  6;  Ps.  xviii.  30;  Prov.  xvi.  9;  Isa.  xlv.  5;  Luke 
i.  53 :  James  iv.  13-15. 

19.  Prove  that  events  considered  by  us  fortuitous  are  subject  to 
the  control  of  God. 

1st.  A  fortuitous  event  is  one  whose  proximate  causes,  be- 
cause either  of  their  complexity  or  their  subtlety,  escape  our 
observation.  Every  such  event,  however,  as  the  falling  of  a 
leaf,  is  linked  with  the  general  system  of  things,  both  by  its 
antecedents  and  its  consequences. 

2d.  Scripture  affirms  the  fact. — Ex.  xxl  13;  Ps.  lxxv.  6,  7; 
Job  v.  6;  Prov.  xvi.  33. 

20.  What  distinction  has  been  made  beticeen  a  general  and  a 
special  providence,  and  what  is  the  true  view  of  the  subject  ? 

Many  men  admit  that  God  exercises  a  general  superintend- 
ing Providence  over  affairs,  controlling  the  general  current,  and 
determining  great  and  important  events,  while  they  regard  it 
superstitious  and  derogatory  to  the  sublime  dignity  and  great- 
ness of  God  to  conceive  of  him  as  interesting  himself  in  every 
trivial  detail.  Many  who  do  not  clearly  understand  themselves 
feel  and  practically  judge  of  all  events  in  their  relation  to  divine 
Providence  in  like  manner. 

But  this  whole  mode  of  conception  and  feeling  springs  from 
a  very  low  anthropomorphic  view  of  God's  attributes  and  man- 
ner of  action,  as  if  there  could  be  with  the  absolute  Cause  and 
the  infinite  Ruler  the  same  difference  between  little  things  and 
great  things  as  there  is  with  us;  as  if  to  him,  as  to  us,  a  multi- 
tude of  details  were  more  burdensome,  or  less  worthy  of  at- 
tention, than  some  grand  result.  A  general  and  a  special 
Providence  can  not  be  two  different  modes  of  divine  operation. 
The  same  providential  administration  is  necessarily  at  the  same 
time  general  and  special  for  the  same  reason,  because  it  reaches 
without  exception  equally  to  every  event  and  creature  in  the 
world.  A  General  Providence  is  special  because  it  secures 
general  results  by  the  control  of  every  event,  great  and  small, 
leading  to  that  result.  A  Special  Providence  is  general  because 
it  specially  controls  all  individual  beings  and  actions  in  the 
universe.  All  events  are  so  related  together  as  a  concatenated 
system  of  causes,  and  effects,  and  conditions,  that  a  general 
Providence  that  is  not  at  the  same  time  special  is  as  incon- 
ceivable as  a  whole  which  has  no  parts,  or  as  a  chain  which 
has  no  links. 

21.  Prove  that  tJie  providential  government  of  God  extends  to 
the  free  acts  of  men. 


RELATION  OF  PROVIDENCE    TO  HUMAN  FREEDOM.     2G7 

1st.  The  free  actions  of  men  are  potent  causes  influencing 
the  general  system  of  things  precisely  as  all  other  classes  of 
causes  in  the  world,  and  consequently,  on  the  principle  indi- 
cated in  the  answer  to  the  preceding  question,  they  also  must 
be  subject  to  God,  or  every  form  of  providence  whatever  would 
be  impossible  for  him. 

2d.  It  is  affirmed  in  Scripture. — Ex.  xii.  36;  1  Sam.  xxiv. 
9-15;  Ps.  xxxiii.  14,  15;  Prov.  xvi.  1;  xix.  21;  xx.  24;  xxl  1; 
Jer.  x.  23;  Phil.  ii.  13. 

22.  Show  from  Scripture  that  Gods  providence  is  exercised 
over  the  sinful  acts  of  men. 

2  Sam.  xvi.  10;  xxiv.  1;  Ps.  lxxvi.  10;  Kom.  xi.  32;  Acta 
iv.  27,  28. 

23.  Wliat  do  the  Scriptures  teach  as  to  Gods  'providential 
agency  in  the  good  acts  of  men. 

The  Scriptures  attribute  all  that  is  good  in  man  to  the  free 
grace  of  God,  operating  both  providentially  and  spiritually, 
and  influencing  alike  the  body  and  the  soul,  and  the  outward 
relations  of  the  individual. — Phil.  ii.  13,  iv.  13;  2  Cor.  xii.  9,  10; 
Eph.  ii.  10;  Gal.  v.  22-25. 

It  is  to  be  remembered,  however,  that  while  a  material 
cause  may  be  analyzed  into  the  mutual  interaction  of  two  or 
more  bodies,  a  human  soul  acts  spontaneously,  i.  e.,  originates 
action.  The  soul  also,  in  all  its  voluntary  acts,  is  determined 
by  its  own  prevailing  dispositions  and  desires. 

When  all  the  good  actions  of  men,  therefore,  are  attributed 
to  God,  it  is  not  meant,  1st,  that  he  causes  them,  or,  2d,  that  he 
determines  man  to  cause  them,  irrespectively  of  man's  free  will ; 
but  it  is  meant  that  God  so  acts  upon  man  from  within  spirit- 
ually, and  from  without  by  moral  influences,  as  to  induce  the 
free  disposition.  He  works  in  us  first  to  will,  and  then  to  do 
his  good  pleasure. 

24.  What  do  the  Scriptures  teach  as  to  the  relation  of  Provi- 
dence to  the  sinful  acts  of  men  ? 

The  Scriptures  teach — 

1st.  The  sinful  acts  of  men  are  in  such  a  sense  under  the 
divine  control  that  they  occur  only  by  his  permission  and  ac- 
cording to  his  purpose. — I  Chron.  i.  4—14;  Gen.  xlv.  5  and  1.  20. 
Compare  1  Sam.  vi.  6  and  Ex.  vii.  13  and  xiv.  17;  Is.  lxvi.  4; 
2  Thess.  ii.  11;  Acts  iv.  27,  28;  ii.  23;  iii.  18. 

2d.  He  restrains  and  controls  sin. — Ps.  lxxvi.  10;  Gen.  1.  20; 
Is.  x.  15. 

3d.  lie  overrules  it  for  good. — Gen.  1.  20;  Acts  iii.  13. 


268  PROVIDENCE. 

4th.  God  neither  causes  sin,  nor  approves  it,  he  only  per- 
mits, directs,  restrains,  limits,  and  overrules  it.  Man,  the  nee 
agent,  is  the  sole  responsible  and  guilty  cause  of  his  own  sin. 

Turretin  sets  forth  the  testimony  of  Scripture  upon  this  sub- 
ject thus — 

1st.  As  to  the  beginning  of  tJie  sin,  (1.)  God  freely  permits  it. 
But  this  permission  is  neither  moral,  i.  e.,  while  permitting  it 
physically,  he  never  approves  it;  nor  merely  negative,  i.  e.,  he 
ioes  not  simply  concur  in  the  result,  but  he  positively  deter- 
mines that  bad  men  shall  be  permitted  for  wise  and  holy 
ends  to  act  according  to  their  bad  natures. — Acts  xiv.  16; 
Ps.  lxxxi.  12.  (2.)  He  deserts  those  who  sin,  either  by  with- 
Irawing  grace  abused,  or  by  withholding  additional  grace. 
This  desertion  may  be  either  (a)  partial,  to  prove  man's  heart 
(2  Chron.  xxxii.  31),  or  (b)  for  correction,  or  (c)  penal  (Jer. 
vii.  29;  Kom.  i.  24-26).  (3)  God  so  orders  providential  cir- 
cumstances that  the  inherent  wickedness  of  men  takes  the 
particular  course  of  action  he  has  determined  to  permit  (Acts 
ii.  23;  hi.  18).  (4.)  God  delivers  men  to  Satan,  (a)  as  a  tempter 
(2  Thess.  ii.  9-11),  (b)  as  a  torturer  (1  Cor.  v.  5). 

2d.  As  to  the  progress  of  the  sin,  God  restrains  it  as  to  its 
intensity  and  its  duration,  and  as  to  its  influence  upon  others. 
This  he  effects  both  by  internal  influences  upon  the  heart,  and 
by  the  control  of  external  circumstances. — Ps.  lxxvi.  10. 

3d.  As  to  the  end  or  result  of  the  sin,  God  uniformly  over- 
rules it  and  directs  it  for  good. — Gen.  1.  20;  Job  i.  12;  ii.  6-10; 
Actsiii.  13;  iv.  27,  28. 

25.  What  are  tJie  three  general  classes  in  which  all  theories  as 
to  Gods  Providential  Government  may  be  embraced  ? 

1st.  Those  views  which  remove  God  from  all  present  active 
agency  in  the  creation,  and  assert  the  entire  independence  of 
second  causes.  2d.  Those  theories  which  more  or  less  explicitly 
deny  the  real  agency  of  second  causes  and  make  God  the  only 
real  agent  in  the  universe.  3d.  The  middle  or  Christian  view, 
which  maintains  all  the  principles  on  this  subject  taught  in  the 
Scriptures  as:  The  real  efficiency  of  second  causes,  especially 
the  moral  freedom  and  accountability  of  man  in  his  acts,  and 
at  the  same  time  the  universal,  efficient  control  of  God,  whereby 
in  perfect  consistency  with  the  attributes  of  his  own  nature,  and 
with  the  several  properties  of  his  creatures,  he  determines  and 
disposes  of  all  actions  and  events  according  to  his  sovereign 
purpose. 

26.  State  tJie  Mechanical  Theory  of  Providence. 

This  view  supposes  that  when  Gcd  created  the  universe  he 


THE    MECHANICAL    THEORY.  2G9 

endowed  all  the  various  material  and  spiritual  elements  with 
their  respective  properties  and  powers,  that  he  then  grouped 
them  in  certain  combinations  and  proportions,  and  so  made 
them  subject  to  certain  general  laws.  The  world  is  thus  a 
machine,  which  the  maker  has  so  calculated  that  it  works  out 
of  itself  all  his  purposes.  Having  wound  it  up  he  leaves  it  to 
itself.  God  is  the  first  cause  in  the  sense  of  his  being  the  first 
member  in  an  endless  series  of  causes  alwaj^s  flowing  on  further 
and  further  from  their  source.  Some  of  these  philosophers  con- 
fine this  rigid  mechanism  to  the  physical  world,  and  regard  the 
free  wills  of  men  as  an  absolutely  indeterminate  element  em- 
braced in  the  general  mechanism  of  the  world.  The  majority 
however  deny  free  agency,  and  regard  man  as  one  of  the  cos- 
mical  elements  not  essentially  different  from  the  rest. 

All  providential  interferences  and  all  miracles  therefore 
would  be  impossible.  To  suppose  any  necessity  for  such  in- 
terferences would  be  to  suppose  some  radical  defect  in  God's 
work — that  either  he  must  have  been  incapable  of  precalculat- 
ing  all  necessary  combinations,  or  that  he  was  unable  to  execute 
a  machine  that  would  run  of  itself.  Prof.  Baden  Powel  says, 
"  It  is  derogatory  to  the  idea  of  infinite  power  and  wisdom  to 
suppose  an  order  of  things  so  imperfectly  established  that  it 
must  be  occasionally  interrupted  and  violated."  And  Theodore 
Parker  says,  "Men  have  their  precarious  make-shifts;  the  Infi- 
nite has  no  tricks,  no  subterfuges — not  a  whim  in  God,  and  so 
not  a  miracle  in  nature." 

27.  Expose  the  fallacy  of  that  view. 

1st.  It  is  opposed  to  the  plain  teaching  of  God's  word  as  set 
forth  under  Questions  15-24.  2d.  It  is  essentially  irreligious, 
and  materialistic.  It  fails  to  recognize  the  education  and  dis- 
cipline of  free  intelligent  agents  as  the  great  end  to  which  the 
universe  as  a  system  of  means  is  adapted.  It  separates  the  souls 
of  men  from  God,  it  makes  prayer  a  mockery,  revelation  impos- 
sible, moral  accountability  a  prejudice,  and  religion  a  delusion. 
3d.  It  is  based  on  a  miserably  shallow  anthropomorphic  idea 
of  God.  It  conceives  of  the  universe  simply  as  a  mechanical 
system  of  causes,  and  as  sustaining  the  same  relation  to  God 
that  a  human  work  does  to  its  maker,  who  is  necessarily  ex- 
terior to  his  work.  It  utterly  fails — 1st.  To  apprehend  the  real 
indwelling  of  the  Creator  in  the  creation  as  an  omnipresent, 
ever-active,  and  controlling  spirit,  a  personal  agent  making 
law  by  working  through  law  for  the  purpose  of  accomplishing 
elected  ends.  2d.  To  apprehend  the  true  nature  of  the  universe 
in  relation  to  its  highest  ends  as  a  moral  system  designed  for 


270  PROVIDENCE. 

the  instruction  and  development  of  free,  personal,  moral  agents, 
created  in  the  image  of  God. 

A  system  involving  an  established  order  of  nature,  and 
proceeding  in  wise  adaptation  of  means  to  ends,  is  necessary 
as  a  means  of  communicat  ion  between  the  Creator  and  the  in- 
telligent creation,  and  to  accomplish  the  intellectual  and  moral 
education  of  the  latter.  Thus  only  can  the  divine  attributes  of 
wisdom,  righteousness,  or  goodness  be  exercised  or  manifested, 
and  thus  only  can  angel  or  man  understand  the  character, 
anticipate  the  will,  or  intelligently  and  voluntarily  co-operate 
with  the  plan  of  God. 

Occasional  direct  exercises  of  power,  moreover,  in  connec- 
tion with  a  general  system  of  means  and  laws,  appears  to  be 
necessary  not  only  "  in  the  beginning,"  to  create  second  causes 
and  inaugurate  their  agency,  but  also  subsequently,  in  order  to 
make  to  the  subjects  of  his  moral  government  the  revelation 
of  his  free  personality,  and  of  his  immediate  interest  in  their 
affairs.  At  any  rate,  such  occasional  direct  action  and  revela- 
tion is  necessary  for  the  education  of  man  in  his  present  state. 
A  miracle,  although  effected  by  divine  power  without  means, 
is  itself  a  means  to  an  end  and  part  of  a  plan.  All  natural  law 
has  its  birth  in  the  divine  reason,  and  is  an  expression  of  will 
to  effect  a  purpose. — "Beign  of  Law,"  by  Duke  of  Argyle. 
The  "  order  of  nature "  is  only  an  instrument  of  the  divine  will, 
and  an  instrument  used  subserviently  to  that  higher  moral 
government  in  the  interests  of  which  miracles  are  wrought. 
Thus  the  "order  of  nature,"  the  ordinary  providence  of  God, 
and  miracles,  instead  of  being  in  conflict,  are  the  intimately 
correlated  elements  of  one  comprehensive  system. 

28.  What  classes  of  philosophers  have  actually  or  virtually  denied 
the  real  efficiency  of  second  causes? 

All  Pantheists,  of  course,  regard  all  second  causes  as  modi- 
fications of  the  First  Cause,  and  God  the  only  real  agent  in  the 
universe.  Des  Cartes,  although  a  believer  in  God,  and  in  the 
real  objective  existence  of  material  as  well  as  spiritual  agents, 
nevertheless  held  that  they  were  created  anew  every  moment 
in  all  their  successive  states  and  actions,  and  so  virtually  made 
second  causes  only  a  modification  of  the  First  Cause.  His 
disciples  deduced  therefrom  the  theory  of  occasional  causes, 
making  changes  in  the  second  cause  merely  the  occasion  upon 
which  the  First  Cause  exercises  its  efficient  agency  and  accom- 
plishes the  effect.  This  led  to  the  Pantheism  of  Spinoza.  Dr. 
Emmons,  of  New  England,  held  in  connection  with  the  "exer- 
cise scheme  "  the  doctrine  of  divine  efficiency.  That  we  know 
nothing  in  the  human  soul  but  a  series  of  exercises  connected 


THE    THEORY   OF   CONCURSUS.  271 

with  an  obscure  thread  of  consciousness.  God  is  the  real  cause 
creating  each  moment  each  of  these  exercises  in  their  succes- 
sions, the  good  and  the  bad  alike,  just  as  a  musician  blows  the 
successive  notes  on  a  pipe  at  his  will. 

To  this  class  of  speculations  belongs  the  theory  of  "  Concur- 
sus,"  which  prevailed  so  long  in  the  Church. 

29.  What  doctrine  ivas  represented  by  the  phrase  "  general  and 
indifferent  concursus,"  and  who  were  its  advocates  ? 

Theologians  were  occupied  during  ma  ay  centuries  with  de- 
bating the  question  as  to  the  nature  of  I  ae  "  concursus,"  or  in- 
flowing and  co- working  of  God  in  sec*  md  causes. 

The  Jesuits,  and  with  them  th  8  S  ians  and  Remonstrants, 
maintain  that  this  " concursus''  is  "general"  and  "indif- 

ferent " ;  that  is,  that  it  is  con  ■  to  all  causes,  quicken- 

ing them  to  action,  but  indifl  i  e.,  the  first  cause  is,  as 

it  were,  a  mere  general    -tinr  he  second  cause,  leaving 

each  one  to  determine  i  a  ov  rticular  mode  of  action.     This 

they  illustrate  by  the  genrr.  .ckening  power  of  the  sun, 
which  sheds  the  sam  universally  and  indifferently 

upon  all  earthly  obje    a  ic'i  radiance  is  the  common  prin- 

ciple of  all  life  and  vement.     Where  this  radiance  is 

absent  there  is  no  life.  Yet  it  is  indifferent  to  any  particular 
form  of  life  or  movement — and  every  particular  germ  germi- 
nates after  its  own  kind  under  the  quickening  power  of  the 
same  sun. 

This  theory  obviously  admits  the  preservation  of  the  es- 
sences and  active  powers  of  all  things  by  God,  but  it  virtually 
denies  by  omission  all  real  providential  government.  According 
to  this  view,  God  created  and  preserves  all  things,  and  they  in 
turn  act  spontaneously  according  to  their  nature  and  tenden 
cies  without  his  cctrol. 

30.  What  doctrine  was  expressed  by  the  phrase  "concursus 
simultaneous  and  immediate   ? 

This  phrase  expresses  an  act  of  God  whereby  he  co-operates 
with  the  creatnre  in  his  act,  as  a  concause,  in  the  production 
of  the  act  as  z  a  entity.  In  support  of  this  view,  and  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  bare  admission  of  the  above-explained  "concursus 
general  and  indifferent,"  the  disciples  of  Thomas  Aquinas  in 
the  Roman  Church  and  all  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed  theolo- 
gians agioe  1.  The  question  however  remained  a  point  of  dif- 
ficult aru\  of  difference  as  to  which  is  the  determining  facfor 
in  t!  s  u\ nl  causality.  Does  God  determine  the  creature  iu 
ever;,  ca  ,e  to  act,  and  to  act  as  he  does  and  not  otherwise,  oi 
dots  thf  creature  determine  himself? 


272  PROVIDENCE. 

31.  What  doctrine  ivas  expressed  by  tlie  phrase  "concursus, 
previous  and  determining,"  and  ivho  were  its  advocates? 

Hence  the  Keformed  or  Calvinistic  theologians  maintained 
in  addition  the  doctn.  f  "Precursus"  or  of  a  "Concursus, 
previous  and  dete1  nin.ng."  This  signified  a  divine  energy- 
acting  upon  the  creature,  and  in  every  case  determining  it  to 
act,  and  to  act  precisely  as  i '  "  oes.  Some  applied  this  to  such 
human  actions  as  are  go<  '  others  more  logically  applied  it  to 
all  actions  of  every  kind  whatsoever. 

32.  How  did  the  Reformed  theologians  attempt  to  reconcile  this 
doctrine  with  the  freedom  of  man  and  with  tJie  holiness  of  God? 

As  to  the  freedom  of  man,  they  —  1st.  Pleaded  mystery. 
2d.  They  pleaded  that  the  two  facts,  (a)  that  human  action 
is  free,  and  (b)  that  God  efficiently  governs  that  action,  are 
both  certainly  revealed  in  Scripture  and  therefore  must  be 
mutually  consistent  whether  we  can  reconcile  them  or  not. 
3d.  They  argued  that  the  modus  Oj>erandi  of  this  divine  con- 
cursus in  every  case  varied  with  fie  nature  of  the  creature 
upon  which  it  is  exerted,  and  that  i  t  is  always  perfectly  con- 
sistent with  the  nature  of  that  creature,  and  its  modes  of 
action.  "Therefore  since  Providence  does  not  concur  with 
the  human  will,  either  by  the  way  of  co-action,  forcing  an  un- 
willing will,  nor  by  the  way  of  a  physical  determination,  as 
though  it  were  a  thing  brutish  and  blind,  devoid  of  all  judg- 
ment, but  rationally  by  turning  the  will  in  a  manner  congru- 
ous to  itself  that  it  may  determine  itself,  it  follows,  that  the 
proximate  cause  of  each  man's  action  being  in  the  judgment 
of  his  own  understanding,  and  spontaneous  election  of  his  own 
will,  it  exerts  no  constraining  force  upon  oilt  liberty,  but  rather 
sustains  it." — Turretin,  L.  6,  Q.  6. 

"Moveri  voluntarie  est  moveri  ex  se,  i.  e.,,a  principio  intrin- 
sico.  Sed  illud  principium  intrinsicum  potest  osse  ab  alio  prin- 
cipio extrinsico.  Et  sic  moveri  ex  se  non  repii-nat  si,  quod 
movetur  ex  alio.  Illud  quod  movetur  ab  alio  dicitur  cogi,  si 
moveatur  contra  inclinationem  propriam,  moveatur  ab 

alio  quod  sibi  dat  propriam  inclinationem,  non  dicitur  cogi. 
Sic  igitur  Deus  movendo  voluntatem  non  cog-it  ipaatr  quia  dat 
ei  ejus  propriam  inclinationem." — Thomas,  Vol.  1.,  LO  d 

by  Dr.  Charles  Hodge. 

As  to  the  holiness  of  God  in  relation  to  the  sinful  is 

creatures  they  held:  1st.   That  sin  originates  in  a    dele 
privative  cause.     2d.  That  there  is  a  difference   ! 
mere  matter  of  the  act  as  an  entity  and  its  moral  qur..it  y.    Go 
is  an  efficient  concause  of  the  former,  but  not  of  the  lat; 


THE    THEORY  INVALID.  273 

be  evil.  They  illustrated  this  by  the  use  of  an  illy-tuned  instru- 
ment in  the  hands  of  a  skilful  player.  The  player  is  the  cause 
of  each  of  the  sounds  in  their  order,  but  the  derangement  of 
the  instrument  alone  is  the  cause  of  the  discord.  3d.  Hence 
the  relation  of  God's  providence  to  the  evil  actions  of  man,  is 
very  different  from  its  relation  to  their  good  actions.  In  the 
case  of  the  latter  he  gives  the  grace  which  communicates  the 
moral  quality,  as  well  as  co-operates  in  the  production  of  the 
action.  In  the  case  of  the  former  his  concursus  is  confined  to 
the  matter  of  the  act,  the  sinful  quality  is  derived  from  the 
creature  only. 

33.  State  the  several  objections  ivltich  lie  against  this  theory  of 
concursus. 

1st.  It  is  an  unsuccessful  attempt  to  go  beyond  the  mere  facts 
taught  by  Scripture  in  the  search  of  an  explanation  of  the  man- 
ner in  which  God  acts  upon  the  creature  in  effecting  his  ends. 

2d.  This  theory  tends  to  the  denial  of  the  real  efficiency  of 
second  causes,  and  therefore  tends  to  Pantheism.  This  was  a 
danger  less  appreciated  by  the  Great  Reformers  and  their  suc- 
cessors of  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries  than  it  has 
of  necessity  come  to  be  in  our  day.  It  is  of  the  highest  impor- 
tance that  we  hold  both  the  correlated  truths  of  the  real  effi- 
ciency of  second  causes,  and  of  the  controlling  providence  of 
God,  of  human  freedom  and  of  divine  sovereignty,  and  then 
leave  the  question  of  their  reconciliation  to  the  future. 

34.  How  far  do  the  Scriptures  teach  any  thing  as  to  the  nature 
of  God's  'providential  government  ? 

The  mode  in  which  the  divine  agency  is  exerted  is  left 
entirely  miexplained,  but  the  fact  that  God  does  govern  all  his 
creatures  and  all  their  actions  is  expressly  stated  and  every- 
where assumed,  and  many  of  the  characteristics  of  that  govern- 
ment  are  set  forth. 

It  is  declared — 

1st.  To  be  universal. — Ps.  ciii.  17-19;  Dan.  iv.  34,  35;  Ps. 
xxii.  28-29. 

2d.  Particular.— Matt.  x.  29-31. 

3d.  It  embraces  the  thoughts  and  volitions  of  men  and 
events  apparently  contingent. — Prov.  xxi.  1 ;  xvi.  9,  33;  xix.  21 ; 
2  Chron.  xvi.  9. 

4th.  It  is  efficacious. — Lam.  ii.  17  ;  Ps.  xxxiii.  11 ;  Job 
xxiii.  13. 

5th.  It  is  the  execution  of  his  eternal  purpose,  embracing 
all  his  works  from  the  beginning  in  one  entire  system  — Acts 
xv.  18;  Eph.  i.  11;  Ps.  civ.  24;  Isa.  xxviii.  29. 
17 


274  PROVIDENCE. 

6th.  Its  chief  end  is  his  own  glory,  and  subordinately 
thereto,  the  highest  good  of  his  redeemed  church. — Rom.  ix.  17 ; 
xL  36;  viii.  28. 

7th.  The  Scriptures  teach  that  the  manner  in  which  God 
executes  his  providential  government  must  be  consistent  with 
his  own  perfections,  since  "  God  can  not  deny  himself,"  2  Tim. 
ii.  13. 

8th.  Also  congruous  with  the  nature  of  every  creature 
effected  thereby,  since  all  free  agents  remain  free  and  re- 
sponsible. 

9th.  Also  that  God  in  the  case  of  the  good  actions  of  men 
gives  the  grace  and  the  motive,  and  co-operates  in  the  act  from 
first  to  last. — Phil.  ii.  13.  But  in  the  case  of  the  sinful  actions 
of  men  he  simply  permits  the  sinful  action,  restrains  it,  and 
then  overrules  it  for  his  own  glory  and  the  highest  good  of  his 
creation. 

35.  How  can  tJie  existence  of  moral  and  physical  evil  be  recon- 
ciled with  the  doctrine  of  God's  providential  government  ? 

The  mystery  of  the  origin  and  permission  of  moral  evil  we 
can  not  solve. 

As  to  physical  evil,  we  answer — 

1st.  That  it  is  never  provided  for  as  an  end  in  itself,  but 
always  a  means  to  an  overbalancing  good. 

2d.  That  in  its  existing  relations  to  moral  evil  as  corrective 
and  punitive,  it  is  justified  alike  by  reason  and  conscience  as 
perfectly  worthy  of  a  wise,  righteous,  and  merciful  God. 

36.  Shoio  that  the  apparently  anomalous  distribution  of  happi- 
ness and  misery  in  this  world  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  doctrine 
of  providence. 

1st.  Every  moral  agent  in  this  world  has  more  of  good  and 
less  of  evil  than  he  deserves. 

2d.  Happiness  and  misery  are  much  more  equally  distrib- 
uted in  this  world  than  appears  upon  the  surface. 

3d.  As  a  general  rule,  virtue  is  rewarded  and  vice  punished 
even  here. 

4th.  The  present  dispensation  is  a  season  of  education,  prep- 
aration, and  trial,  and  not  one  of  rewards  and  punishments. — 
See  Ps.  lxxiiL 

Extraordinary  Providences  and  Miracles. 

37.  How  do  Extraordinary  Providences  differ  from  ordinary 
events  in  their  relation  to  God's  providential  control  ? 

Events  like  that  of  the  flight  of  quails,  and  the  draught  of 


MIRACLES.  275 

fishes,  mentioned  in  Num.  xi.  31,  32,  and  Luke  v.  6,  as  far  as 
ive  know,  differ  from  events  occurring  under  the  ordinary  provi- 
dential control  of  God  only  in  respect  to  the  divinely  prear- 
ranged conjunction  of  circumstances.  The  events  are  not 
supernatural,  only  unusual,  and  their  peculiarity  is  only  that 
they  occur  in  eminently  felicitous  conjunction  with  other 
events,  such  as  the  need  of  the  Israelites,  and  of  the  apos- 
tles, with  which  they  have  no  natural  connection. 

38.  How  are  miracles  designated  in  the  New  Testament  ? 

They  are  called — (1)  vipara,  wonders,  Acts  ii.  19;  (2)  Svra- 
ueis,  works  of  superhuman  power,  and  (3)  dr/tieia,  signs,  John 
ii.  18,  Matt.  xii.  38.  The  last  designation  expresses  their  true 
office.  They  are  designed  to  be  "signs"  incapable  of  being 
counterfeited,  of  God's  commission  and  authentication  of  a 
religious  teacher  and  of  his  doctrine. 

39.  Hoio  then  is  a  miracle,  in  the  Scriptural  sense  of  that  word, 
to  be  defined,  so  as  to  signalize  its  specific  distinction  from  supernat- 
ural events  in  general,  and  from  extraordinary  Providences,  as 
above  explained  ? 

A  miracle  is  (1)  an  event  occurring  in  the  physical  world, 
capable  of  being  discerned  and  discriminated  by  the  bodily 
senses  of  human  witnesses,  (2)  of  such  a  character  that  it  can 
be  rationally  referred  to  no  other  cause  than  the  immediate 
volition  of  God,  (3)  accompanying  a  religious  teacher,  and 
designed  to  authenticate  his  divine  commission  and  the  truth 
of  his  message. 

40.  State  and  answer  tine  a  priori  objection  to  the  possibility  of 
miracles,  that  they  essentially  involve  the  violation  of  the  laws  of 
nature. 

It  is  maintained  that  all  experience,  and  the  integrity  ot 
human  reason,  unite  in  guaranteeing  the  absolute  inviolability 
of  the  law  of  continuity — that  every  possible  event  finds  its 
full  explanation  in  adequate  causes  which  precede  it,  and  that 
every  event  in  its  turn  causes  endless  consequences  to  succeed 
it.  No  event  can  be  isolated  from  its  antecedents  and  conse- 
quences, nor  from  its  conditions,  and  every  cause  acts  accord- 
ing to  an  intelligible  law  of  its  nature. 

This  is  all  true,  and  as  true  of  miracles  as  of  any  other 
events. 

If  by  "  law  of  nature  "  we  mean  the  physical  forces  which 
produce  effects,  then  no  miracle  involves  any  suspension  or 
violation  of  such  law.     It  is  a  common  experience  that  forces 


276  PROVIDENCE. 

modify  each  other,  and  each  added  force  combines  with  others 
in  producing  effects  otherwise  impossible.  If  by  "law  of  na- 
ture "  we  mean  the  ordinary  course  of  events  observed  in  nature, 
then  a  miracle  is,  by  definition,  a  signal  suspension  of  that  order. 
But  the  same  thing  is  brought  about  every  day  by  the  inter 
vention  in  nature  of  the  intelligent  wills  of  men. 

In  every  physical  event  there  are  a  combination  of  con- 
causes  combining  to  effect  it.  The  human  will  in  acting 
violates  no  law,  and  annihilates  no  force,  it  simply  combines 
natural  forces  under  special  conditions,  and  interpolates  into 
the  sum  of  concauses  a  new  concause — the  human  volition. 

When  the  sons  of  the  prophets  "  cut  down  a  stick  and  cast 
it  into  the  water  and  the  iron  of  the  axe-head  did  swim  " 
(2  Kings  vi.  6),  neither  the  specific  gravities  of  the  iron  nor  of 
the  water  were  altered,  nor  was  the  law  of  gravitation  sus- 
pended. The  miracle  consisted  only  in  a  divine  volition  in- 
terpolating a  new  transient  force,  equal  to  the  excess  of  the 
specific  gravity  of  the  iron  over  that  of  the  water,  and  acting 
in  a  direction  opposite  to  that  of  gravity.  This  is  precisely* 
analogous  to  the  action  of  the  human  will  upon  physical1 
objects — with  this  exception — man's  will  acts  upon  outward 
objects  only  indirectly  through  the  mechanism  of  his  body, 
and  directly  only  upon  his  voluntary  muscles;  while  God's  wall 
acts  directly  upon  every  element  of  the  world  he  has  created. 
And  what  is  true  in  this  simple  miracle  could  be  shown  to  be 
true  in  the  most  complex  ones,  such  as  the  raising  of  Lazarus, 
if  we  knew  enough  of  the  chemistry  and  physiology  of  human 
life. 

John  Stuart  Mill  ("Essay  on  Theism,"  Pt.  iv.)  says,  "It  may 
be  argued  that  '  the  power  of  volition  over  phenomena  is  itself 
a  law,  and  one  of  the  earliest  known  and  acknowledged  laws 
of  nature.  .  .  .  The  interference  of  human  will  with  the 
course  of  nature  is  only  not  an  exception  to  law,  when  we  in- 
clude among  laws  the  relation  of  motive  to  volition ;  and  by 
the  same  rule  interference  by  the  divine  will  would  not  be  an 
exception  either;  since  we  can  not  but  suppose  Deity,  in  every 
one  of  his  acts,  to  be  determined  by  motives.'  The  alleged 
analogy  holds  good:  but  what  it  proves  is  only  what  I  have 
from  the  first  maintained — that  divine  interference  with  nature 
could  be  proved  if  we  had  the  same  sort  of  evidence  for  it 
which  we  have  for  human  interferences." 

That  is,  this  greatest  of  all  the  philosophical  rationalists 
maintains  that  there  is  no  d  priori  ground  to  judge  miracles 
impossible.  It  is  purely  a  question  as  to  the  sufficiency  of  the 
evidence.  Eveiy  Christian  is  perfectly  satisfied  that  the  evi- 
dence (historical,  moral,  and  spiritual)  for  the  resurrection  of 


DESIGN  OF  MIRACLES.  277 

Christ,  and  the  miracles  historically  associated  with  that  event, 
is  abundantly  sufficient. 

41.  State  and  answer  the  objection  to  tJie  occurrence  of  a  miracle 
draivnfrom  the  balance  of  the  physical  universe. 

It  is  a  fact  that  the  whole  physical  universe  forms  one  sys- 
tem, and  that  as  at  present  adjusted  it  is  in  a  state  of  such  del- 
icate equilibrium  that  the  addition  or  subtraction  ot  a  single 
atom  in  any  one  portion  of  it  would  disturb  that  equilibrium 
throughout  the  entire  system.  A  disturbance,  however  slight, 
ab  extra — the  intrusion  of  an  agent  not  belonging  to  the  system 
of  things,  would  be  destructive  of  the  whole. 

It  is  obvious  that  this  objection  would  have  weight  if  the 
material  universe  were  an  exclusive  whole  by  itself,  and  if  it 
sustained  no  constitutional  relation  to  God.  But  if  God  and 
the  created  world  together  constitute  a  whole  —  a  complete 
universe  of  things — the  objection  is  absurd.  The  sum  of  his 
activities  of  every  kind  is  the  necessary  complement  of  the 
sura  of  the  activities  of  all  his  creatures,  and  only  thus  the 
equilibrium  is  maintained. 

It  is  plain  that  the  will  of  God  is  no  more  outside  the  sum 
of  things  constituting  the  universe  than  is  the  will  of  man. 
And  man  is  constantly  modifying  nature  over  wide  areas,  and 
every  moment  bringing  his  will  as  a  new  concause  to  act  upon 
the  physical  laws  of  the  universe  ab  extra,  and  giving  them  new 
directions  and  conditions. 

The  equilibrium  of  the  physical  universe,  moreover,  is  not  a 
permanent  one,  but  one  constantly  changing,  especially  through 
the  diffusion  of  heat  and  the  massing  of  matter  at  the  centres 
of  attraction. 

42.  State  and  answer  tJie  objection  that  the  assumption  of  the 
necessity  of  miraculous  interference  is  derogatory  to  the  wisdom 
and  power  of  the  Creator. 

It  is  argued  that  the  skill  of  a  human  workman  is  always 
exhibited  in  proportion  to  the  ability  of  his  work  to  perform  its 
designed  function  independently  of  his  repair,  or  correction,  or 
guidance.  That  the  necessity  of  interference  for  any  purpose 
ab  extra  is  a  proof  of  defect  or  at  least  of  limitation  in  the  skill 
or  power  of  the  maker.  Any  occasion  for  a  miracle  therefore 
could  only  arise,  they  argue,  from  a  change  of  purpose  on  the 
part  of  God,  or  a  radical  defect  upon  the  part  of  his  creation. 
Theodore  Parker  said,  "There  is  no  whim  in  God,  and  therefore 
no  miracle  in  nature." 

This  would  have  force  if  miracles  were  designed  to  correct 


278  PROVIDENCE. 

the  defective  working  of  the  physical  universe.  But  this  no 
Christian  has  ever  dreamed. 

The  design  of  a  miracle  is  simply  to  signify  to  God's  intelli- 
gent creatures  his  active  intervention  in  the  moral  universe  for 
the  purpose  of  restoring  the  order  disturbed  by  sin.  The  mcyral 
system  is  essentially  different  from  the  physical  one.  The  one 
is  mechanical,  the  other  embraces  the  reason,  conscience,  free 
will,  and  the  law  of  motive.  Free  will  makes  sin  possible,  and 
sin  makes  direct  divine  intervention  necessary,  either  to  redeem 
or  to  damn. 

All  the  miracles  of  Scripture  are  grouped  around  the  great 
crises  in  the  work  of  Kedemption,  or  the  restoration  of  the 
original  natural  law  disturbed  by  sin.  Hence  the  miracles  of 
Scripture,  unlike  all  the  miracles  of  the  heathen,  or  of  the  Papal 
Church,  or  of  modern  spiritualism,  instead  of  being  mere  won- 
ders, exhibitions  of  power,  wanton  violations  of  natural  order, 
are  pre-eminently  works  of  healing,  acts  the  whole  bearing 
and  spirit  of  which  imply  the  restoration  and  confirmation,  not 
the  violation,  of  law. 

The  highest  meaning  of  the  word  Law  is  order,  arrange- 
ment, assignment  of  function,  to  the  end  of  effecting  a  purpose. 

The  supreme  essence  of  all  law,  therefore,  is  the  eternal 
purpose  of  God.  Not  a  single  miraculous  intervention  was  an 
after-thought.  One  eternal  act  of  absolutely  intelligent  volition 
embraced  the  whole  scheme  of  being  and  events  in  all  space  and 
all  duration,  appointing  all  ends  and  all  means  and  all  methods 
at  once,  the  necessary  and  the  free,  the  physical  and  the  moral, 
the  acts  of  the  creature  obeying  law,  and  the  interventions  of 
the  Creator  imposing  law. 

43.  How  can  an  event  actually  occurring  be  certainly  recognized 
as  coming  under  the  category  of  miracles  as  above  defined  ? 

I.  A  miracle,  according  to  the  foregoing  definition,  is  "an 
event  occurring  in  the  physical  world  capable  of-  being  dis- 
cerned and  certainly  discriminated  by  the  bodily  senses."  The 
miracles  of  Scripture  fulfil  this  condition,  especially  the  most 
important  of  them.  They  were  exhibited  (1)  in  the  clear  light 
of  day,  (2)  on  several  occasions,  (3)  under  varying  circum- 
stances (4)  to  a  number  of  witnesses,  and  (5)  to  the  scrutiny 
of  several  senses,  as  of  sight,  hearing,  and  touch,  mutually  cor- 
roborating one  another. 

II.  A  miracle,  by  the  same  definition,  must  "accompany  a 
religious  teacher,  and  is  designed  to  authenticate  his  divine 
commission  and  the  truth  of  his  message."  It  hence  follows 
that  every  such  event,  in  order  to  be  credible,  must  (1)  be  itself 
of  a  character,  rationally  and  morally,  congruous  with  its  pro 


A    MIRACLE    CAN  BE    RECOGNIZED.  279 

fessedly  divine  origin.  (2.)  The  character  of  the  religious  teach 
er  whose  commission  it  authenticates,  and  the  character  of  his 
doctrine,  must  be  such  that  it  is  credible  that  they  represent  the 
mind  and  will  of  God.  (3.)  The  messenger  and  his  message 
must  be  found  to  be  consistent,  historically  and  doctrinally, 
with  the  entire  organism  of  preceding  revelations  and  divine 
interventions. 

III.  The  miracle,  in  the  third  place,  must  be  "of  such  a 
character  that  it  can  be  rationally  referred  to  no  other  cause 
than  the  immediate  volition  of  God." 

It  has  been  objected  at  this  point  that  a  miracle  could  not 
be  certainly  determined  to  be  such,  even  if  it  occur,  because — 
1st.  No  man  knows  all  the  laws  of  nature,  nor  what  is  the  true 
line  between  the  natural  and  the  supernatural.  What  is  new  or 
inexplicable  is  relatively  supernatural,  i.  e.,  by  us  incapable  of 
being  reduced  to  the  categories  of  nature.  2d.  Because  evil 
spirits  often  have  wrought  supernatural  works — and  it  is  impos- 
sible for  us,  therefore,  to  determine  in  any  case  that  the  cause 
of  the  event  can  be  only  a  direct  volition  of  God. 

We  answer — 1st.  As  far  as  evil  spirits  are  concerned,  the 
kingdom  of  Satan  can  easily  be  recognized  by  its  character. 
No  isolated  event  is  ever  to  be  recognized  as  a  miracle.  The 
man,  and  the  doctrine,  and  their  relation  to  the  whole  system 
of  past  revelations  and  miraculous  interventions,  will  in  every 
case  be  sufficient  to  discriminate  the  identity  of  the  supernat- 
ural cause  of  an  event.  2d.  As  far  as  the  question  of  deter- 
mining with  certainty  what  effects  transcend  the  powers  of 
nature,  we  answer — (1.)  There  are  some  classes  of  effects 
about  whicli  no  man  can  possibly  doubt,  e.  g.,  the  raising  of  Laz- 
arus, and  the  multiplying  of  the  loaves  and  fishes;  we  may 
doubt  about  the  exact  boundaries  of  the  supernatural — but  no 
man  can  mistake  that  which  so  far  transcends  the  boundaries. 
(2.)  These  effects  were  accomplished  two  thousand  years  ago, 
in  an  unscientific  age,  by  an  unlearned  people.  (3.)  These 
effects  were  produced  over  and  over  again  at  tlve  mere  ivord  of 
command,  without  the  use  of  any  sort  of  means,  or  fixed  physical 
conditions.  (4.)  The  works  were  divine  in  character,  and  the 
occasions  were  worthy,  the  religious  teachers  and  doctrines 
carried  their  own  corroborative  spiritual  evidence,  and  the 
events  fell  into  their  place  in  the  entire  system  of  revelatir n 


CHAPTER    XV. 

THE  MORAL  CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  SOUL,  WILL,  LIBERTY,  ETC 

1.  WJiat  general  department  of  theology  are  we  now  entering, 
and  ivhat  are  the  principal  topics  embraced  in  it  ? 

The  general  department  of  Anthropology,  and  the  principal 
topics  embraced  in  this  department,  are  the  moral  constitution 
of  man  psychologically  considered,  the  moral  condition  of  man 
when  created,  and  the  providential  relations  into  which  man 
was  introduced  at  his  creation, — the  nature  of  sin,  the  sin  of 
Adam,  the  effects  of  his  sin  upon  himself  and  upon  his  pos- 
terity, and  the  consequent  moral  condition  and  legal  relations 
into  which  his  descendants  are  introduced  at  birth. 

It  is  obvious  that  an  accurate  understanding  of  the  nature 
of  sin,  original  or  actual,  of  the  influence  of  divine  grace,  and 
of  the  change  wrought  in  the  soul  in  regeneration,  of  course 
involves  some  previous  knowledge  of  the  constitutional  facul- 
ties of  the  soul,  and  especially  of  those  faculties  which  partic- 
ularly distinguish  man  as  a  moral  agent.  Hence  there  are 
certain  psychological  and  metaphysical  questions  inseparable 
from  theological  discussions. 

2.  What  is  the  general  principle  which  it  is  alivays  necessary 
to  bear  in  mind  while  treating  of  the  various  faculties  of  the  human 
soul? 

The  soul  of  man  is  one  single  indivisible  agent,  not  an  or- 
ganized whole  consisting  of  several  parts;  and,  therefore,  what 
we  call  its  several  faculties  are  rather  the  capacity  of  the  one 
agent,  for  discharging  successively  or  concurrently  the  several 
functions  involved,  and  are  never  to  be  conceived  of  as  sepa- 
rately existing  parts  or  organs.  These  several  functions  exer- 
cised by  the  one  soul  are  so  various  and  complex,  that  a  minute 
analysis  is  absolutely  necessary,  in  order  to  lay  open  to  us  a 
definite  view  of  their  nature.  Yet  we  must  carefully  remem- 
ber that  a  large  part  of  the  errors  into  which  philosophers  have 


FACULTIES    CLASSIFIED.  281 

fallen  in  their  interpretation  of  man's  moral  constitution,  has 
resulted  from  the  abuse  of  this  very  process  of  analysis.  This 
is  especially  true  with  respect  to  the  interpretation  of  the  vol- 
untary acts  of  the  human  soul.  In  prosecution  of  his  analysis 
the  philosopher  comes  to  recognize  separately  the  differences 
and  the  likenesses  of  these  various  functions  of  the  soul,  and 
too  frequently  forgets  that  these  functions  themselves  are,  in 
fact,  never  exercised  in  that  isolated  manner,  but  concurrently 
by  the  one  soul,  as  an  indivisible  agent,  and  that  thus  they 
always  qualify  one  another.  Thus,  it  is  not  true,  in  fact,  that 
the  understanding  reasons,  and  the  heart  feels,  and  the  con- 
science approves  or  condemns,  and  the  will  decides,  as  different 
members  of  the  body  work  together,  or  as  the  different  persons 
constituting  a  council  deliberate  and  decide  in  mutual  parts; 
but  it  is  true  that  the  one  indivisible,  rational,  feeling,  moral, 
self-determining  soul  reasons,  feels,  approves,  or  condemns  and 
decides. 

The  self-determining  power  of  the  wiU  as  an  abstract  faculty 
is  absurd  as  a  doctrine,  and  would  be  disastrous  as  an  experi- 
ence ;  but  the  self-determining  power  of  the  human  soul  as  a 
concrete,  rational,  feeling  agent,  is  a  fact  of  universal  conscious- 
ness, and  a  fundamental  doctrine  of  moral  philosophy  and  of 
Christian  theology.  The  real  question  is  not  as  to  the  liberty 
of  tJie  will,  but  as  to  the  liberty  of  the  man  in  willing.  It  is  obvi- 
ous that  we  are  free  if  we  have  liberty  to  will  as  we  please, 
i.  e.,  as  upon  the  whole  we  judge  best,  and  all  things  consid- 
ered desire. 

3.  How  may  (lie  leading  faculties  of  tJie  human  soul  be  classified? 
and  which  are  the  seat  of  our  moral  nature? 

1st.  The  intellectual.  This  class  includes  all  those  faculties 
in  different  ways  concerned  in  the  general  function  of  know- 
ing ;  as  the  reason,  the  imagination,  the  bodily  senses,  and  the 
moral  sense  (when  considered  as  a  mere  source  of  knowledge 
informing  the  understanding). 

2d.  The  emotional.  This  class  includes  all  those  feelings 
which  attend,  in  any  manner,  the  exercise  of  the  other  faculties. 

3d.  The  will. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  functions  of  the  conscience  in- 
volve faculties  belonging  to  both  the  first  and  second  classes 
(see  below,  Question  5). 

It  is  often  asked,  Which  of  our  faculties  is  the  seat  of  our 
moral  nature?  Now  while  there  is  a  sense  in  which  all  moral 
questions  concern  the  relation  of  the  states  or  acts  of  the  will 
to  the  law  of  God  revealed  in  the  conscience,  and  therefore  in 
which  the  will  and  the  conscience  are  pre-eminently  the  foun- 


282  MORAL    CONSTITUTION   OF    THE    SOUL. 

dation  of  man's  moral  nature,  it  is  true,  nevertheless,  that  every 
one  of  the  faculties  of  the  human  soul,  as  above  classified,  is 
exercised  in  relation  to  all  moral  distinctions,  e.  g.,  the  intellect- 
ual in  the  perception  and  judgment;  the  emotional  in  pleasant 
feeling  or  the  reverse ;  the  will,  in  choosing  or  refusing,  and  in 
acting.  Every  state  or  act  of  any  one  of  the  faculties  of  the 
human  soul,  therefore,  which  involves  the  judging,  choosing, 
refusing,  or  desiring,  upon  a  purely  moral  question,  or  the  feel- 
ing corresponding  thereto,  is  a  moral  state  or  act,  and  all  the 
faculties,  viewed  in  their  relations  to  the  distinction  between 
good  and  evil,  are  moral  faculties. 

4.  What  is  the  WiU? 

The  term  "will"  is  often  used  to  express  the  mere  faculty  of 
volition,  whereby  the  soul  chooses,  or  refuses,  or  determines  to 
act,  and  the  exercise  of  that  faculty.  It  is  also  used  in  a  wider 
sense,  and  in  this  sense  I  use  it  here,  to  include  the  faculty  of 
volition,  together  with  all  of  the  spontaneous  states  of  the  soul 
(designated  by  Sir  William  Hamilton,  "  Lectures  on  Metaphy- 
sics," Lect.  XL,  the  faculties  of  conation,  the  excitive,  striving 
faculties,  possessing,  as  their  common  characteristic,  "  a  ten- 
dency toward  the  realization  of  their  end"),  the  dispositions, 
affections,  desires,  which  determine  a  man  in  the  exercise  of 
his  free  power  of  volition.  It  must  be  remembered,  however, 
that  these  two  senses  of  the  word  "will"  are  essentially  distinct. 
The  will,  as  including  all  the  faculties  of  conation  (the  disposi- 
tions and  desires),  is  to  be  essentially  distinguished  from  the 
single  faculty  of  soul  exercised  in  the  resulting  volition,  i.  e., 
the  choosing  or  the  acting  according  to  its  prevailing  desire. 

The  term  "  will "  is  used  in  the  wider  sense  in  this  chapter. 
A  man  in  willing  is  perfectly  free,  i.  e.,  he  always  exercises 
volition  according  to  the  prevailing  disposition  or  desire  of  his 
will  at  the  time.  This  is  the  highest  freedom,  and  the  only 
one  consistent  with  rationality  or  moral  responsibility. 

5.  Define  the  terra  Volition. 

By  the  term  "  faculty  of  volition  "  we  mean  the  executive 
faculty  of  the  soul,  the  faculty  of  choice  or  self-decision ;  and 
by  the  term  "  volition  "  we  mean  the  exercise  of  that  faculty 
in  any  act  of  choice  or  self-decision. 

6.  What  is  Conscience? 

Conscience,  as  a  faculty,  includes  (a)  a  moral  sense  or  intu- 
tion,  a  power  of  discerning  right  and  wrong,  which,  combining 
with  the  understanding,  or  faculty  of  comparing  and  judging, 
judges  of  the  right  or  wrong  of  our  own  moral  dispositions  and 


TRUE   TEST  AND  SEAT  OF  MORAL   CHARACTER.         283 

voluntary  actions,  and  of  the  dispositions  and  voluntary  actiona 
of  other  free  agents,  (b.)  This  faculty  judges  according  to  a 
divine  law  of  right  and  wrong,  included  within  itself  (it  is  a 
law  to  itself,  the  original  law  written  upon  the  heart,  Rom. 
ii.  14),  and  (c)  it  is  accompanied  with  vivid  emotions,  pleasur 
able  in  view  of  that  which  is  right,  and  painful  in  view  of  that 
which  is  wrong,  especially  when  our  conscience  is  engaged  in 
reviewing  the  states  or  the  actions  of  our  own  souls.  This 
faculty  in  its  own  province  is  sovereign,  and  can  have  no  other 
superior  than  the  revealed  word  of  God. — See  M'Cosh,  "Divine 
Government,"  Book  III.,  chap.  i.  sec.  4. 

7.  What  is  the  true  test  for  determining  tJie  moi'al  quality  of  any 
mental  act  or  state  ? 

The  only  true  tests  of  the  moral  quality  of  any  state  or  act 
are — 1st.  The  inspired  word  of  God,  and  2d.  The  spontaneous, 
practical,  and  universal  judgments  of  men. 

The  moral  judgments  of  men,  like  all  our  intuitive  judg- 
ments, are  certainly  reliable  only  when  they  respect  concrete 
and  individual  judgments.  The  generalized  and  abstract  prop- 
ositions which  being  supposed  to  be  formed  by  abstraction  and 
generalization  from  these  individual  judgments  may  be  true  or 
not,  but  they  can  not  be  received  as  a  reliable  foundation  upon 
which  to  erect  a  system  of  evidence.  Very  absurd  attempts 
have  been  often  made  to  demonstrate  the  moral  or  non-moral 
character  of  any  principle,  by  means  of  general  formularies  rep- 
resenting partial  truths  imperfectly  stated,  and  by  means  of 
other, — either  false,  senseless,  or  irrelevant, — a  priori  consid- 
erations. 

8.  Into  what  classes  are  the  spontaneous  affections  of  tlie  soul  to 
be  distributed,  and  what  are  the  distinguishing  characteristics  of  each 
class? 

The  spontaneous  desires  and  affections  of  the  soul  are  ot 
two  distinct  classes.  1st.  The  animal,  or  those  which  arise 
blindly  without  intelligence,  e.  g.,  the  appetites  and  instinctive 
affections,  these  have  no  intrinsic  moral  quality  in  themselves, 
and  become  the  occasion  of  moral  action  only  when  they  are 
restrained  or  inordinately  indulged.  2d.  The  rational  affec- 
tions and  desires  called  out  by  objects  apprehended  by  the 
intellect. 

9.  What  rational  spontaneous  affections  possess  a  moral  quality, 
and  in  what  does  that  quality  inherently  attach  ? 

Such  rational  spontaneous  affections  are  intrinsically  and 
essentially  either  good  or  bad  or  morally  indifferent,  and  their 


284  MORAL    CONSTITUTION   OF    THE    SOUL. 

quality  is  discriminated  by  the  quality  of  the  objects  by  which 
they  are  attracted.  They  are  good  when  their  objects  are  good, 
evil  when  their  objects  are  evil,  and  morally  indifferent  when 
their  objects  are  indifferent.  Their  moral  quality,  whatever  it 
be,  is  intrinsic  to  them.  When  they  are  good,  all  men  con- 
6ider  them  worthy  of  approbation,  and  when  they  are  evil,  all 
men  consider  them  worthy  of  condemnation  and  righteous  in- 
dignation, because  of  their  essential  nature  as  good  or  as  evil, 
ind  without  any  consideration  of  their  origin.  When  good 
these  spontaneous  affections  determine  the  volitions  to  good, 
when  they  are  evil  they  determine  the  volitions  to  evil. 

10.  To  ivhat  do  we  apply  the  designation  "permanent  principles, 
sr  dispositions"  of  soul?  and  when  do  they  possess  a  moral  charac- 
ter, and  what  is  the  source  of  that  character  ? 

There  are  in  the  soul,  underlying  its  passing  states  and  af- 
fections, certain  permanent  habits  or  dispositions  involving  a 
tendency  to  or  facility  for  certain  kinds  of  exercises.  Some  of 
these  habits  or  dispositions  are  innate  and  some  are  acquired. 
These  constitute  the  character  of  the  man,  and  lay  the  founda- 
tion for  all  his  successive  exercises  of  feeling,  affection,  desire, 
volition,  or  action.  As  far  as  these  are  morally  good,  the  man 
and  his  action  are  good ;  as  far  as  these  are  evil,  the  man  and 
his  action  are  evil;  as  far  as  these  are  morally  indifferent,  i.  c, 
concern  objects  morally  indifferent,  the  actions  which  spring 
from  them  are  morally  indifferent.  The  moral  character  of 
these  inherent  moral  tendencies  of  the  soul  is  intrinsic  and  es- 
sential. They  are  the  ultimate  tendencies  of  the  soul  itself,  and 
their  goodness  or  badness  is  an  ultimate  fact  of  consciousness. 

11.  Show  that  the  state  and  action  of  the  intellect  may  possess  a 
moral  character. 

The  intellect  is  so  implicated  in  its  exercises  with  the  moral 
affections  and  emotions,  that  its  views  and  judgments  on  all 
moral  subjects  have  a  moral  character  also.  A  man  is  hence 
responsible  for  his  moral  judgments — and  hence  for  his  beliefs 
as  well  as  for  his  moral  feelings,  because  the  one  is  as  imme- 
diately as  the  other  determined  by  the  general  moral  state  or 
character  of  the  soul.  A  man  who  is  blind  to  moral  excellence, 
or  to  the  deformity  of  sin,  is  condemned  by  every  enlightened 
conscience.  The  Scriptures  pronounce  a  woe  upon  those  "who 
call  evil  good  and  good  evil,  who  put  light  for  darkness  and 
darkness  for  light," — Isa.  v.  20.  Sin  is  called  in  Scripture  "blind- 
ness" and  "folly."— 1  John  ii.  11;  Eph.  iv.  18;  Rev.  iii.  17;  Matt 
xxiii.  17 ;  Luke  xxiv.  25. 


CONSCIENCE  INDESTRUCTIBLE.  285 

12.  What  are  the  essential  conditions  of  moral  responsibility? 

To  be  morally  responsible  a  man  must  be  a  free,  rational, 
moral  agent  (see  answer  to  preceding  question).  1st.  He  must 
be  in  present  possession  of  his  reason  to  distinguish  truth  from 
falsehood.  2d.  He  must  also  have  in  exercise  a  moral  sense 
to  distinguish  right  from  wrong.  3d.  His  will,  in  its  volitions 
or  executive  acts,  must  be  self-decided,  i.  e.,  determined  by  its 
own  spontaneous  affections  and  desires.  If  any  of  these  are 
wanting,  the  man  is  insane,  and  neither  free  nor  responsible. 

13.  7s  the  conscience  indestructible  and  infallible  ? 

The  conscience,  the  organ  of  God's  law  in  the  soul,  may  vir- 
tually, i.  e.,  as  to  its  effects  and  phenomena,  be  both  rendered 
latent  and  perverted  for  a  time,  and  in  this  phenomenal  sense, 
therefore,  it  is  neither  indestructible  nor  infallible.  But  if  the 
moral  sense  be  regarded  simply  in  itself  it  is  infallible,  and  if 
the  total  history  of  even  the  worst  man  is  taken  into  the  ac- 
count, conscience  is  truly  indestructible. 

1st.  As  to  its  indestructibility.  Conscience,  like  every  other 
faculty  of  the  soul,  is  undeveloped  in  the  infant,  and  very 
imperfectly  developed  in  the  savage;  and,  moreover,  after  a 
long  habit  of  inattention  to  its  voice  and  violation  of  its  law, 
the  individual  sinner  is  often  judicially  given  up  to  carnal 
indifference;  his  conscience  for  a  time  lying  latent.  Yet  it  is 
certain  that  it  is  never  destroyed — (1.)  From  the  fact  that  it 
is  often  aroused  to  the  most  fearful  energy  in  the  hearts  of 
long-hardened  reprobates  in  the  agonies  of  remorse.  (2. )  From 
the  fact  that  this  remorse  or  accusing  conscience  constitutes  the 
essential  torment  of  lost  souls  and  devils.  This  is  the  worm 
that  never  dieth.  Otherwise  their  punishment  would  lose  its 
moral  character. 

2d.  As  to  its  infallibility.  Conscience,  in  the  act  of  judging 
of  moral  states  or  actions,  involves  the  concurrent  action  of 
the  understanding  and  the  moral  sense.  This  understanding 
is  always  fallible,  especially  when  it  is  prejudiced  in  its  action 
by  depraved  affections  and  desires.  Thus,  in  fact,  conscience 
constantly  delivers  false  decisions  from  a  misjudgment  of  the 
facts  and  relations  of  the  case;  it  may  be  through  a  selfish 
or  sensual  or  a  malignant  bias.  Hence  we  have  virtually  a 
deceiving  as  well  as  a  latent  conscience.  Notwithstanding 
this,  however,  the  normal  sense  of  the  distinction  between 
right  and  wrong,  as  an  eternal  law  to  itself,  lies  indestructible 
even  in  the  most  depraved  breasts,  as  it  can  not  be  destroyed, 
so  it  can  not  be  changed;  when  aroused  to  action,  and  when 
not  deceived  as  to  tin-  true  state  of  the  case,  its  lanjruasre  ifi 


286  MORAL    CONSTITUTION   OF   THE    SOUL. 

eternally  the  same. — See  M'Cosh,  "  Divine  Government,"  Book 
III.,  chapter  ii.,  section  6,  and  Dr.  A.  Alexander,  "Moral  Sci- 
ence,"  chapters  iv.  and  v. 

14.  What  is  the  essential  nature  of  virtue  ? 

"Virtue  is  a  peculiar  quality  of"  certain  states  of  the  will, 
t.  e.,  either  permanent  dispositions  or  temporary  affections  of 
the  will,  and  "  of  certain  voluntary  actions  of  a  moral  agent, 
which  quality  is  perceived  by  the  moral  faculty  with  which 
every  man  is  endowed,  and  the  perception  of  which  is  accom- 
panied by  an  emotion  which  is  distinct  from  all  other  emotions, 
and  is  called  moral." — Dr.  Alexander,  "Moral  Science,"  ch.  xxvi. 

The  essence  of  virtue  is,  that  it  obliges  the  will.  If  a  thing 
is  morally  right  it  ought  to  be  done.  The  essence  of  moral  evil 
is,  that  it  intrinsically  deserves  disapprobation,  and  the  agent 
punishment. 

This  point  is  of  great  importance,  because  the  truth  here  is 
often  perverted  by  a  false  philosophy,  and  because  this  view 
of  moral  good  is  the  only  one  consistent  with  the  Scriptural 
doctrine  of  sins,  rewards,  and  punishments,  and,  above  all,  of 
Christ's  atonement. 

The  idea  of  virtue  is  a  simple  and  ultimate  intuition;  at- 
tempted analysis  destroys  it.  Right  is  right  because  it  is.  It 
is  its  own  highest  reason.  It  has  its  norm  in  the  immutable 
nature  of  God. 

15.  What  constitutes  a  virtuous  and  luhat  a  vicious  character  ? 

Virtue,  as  defined  in  the  answer  to  the  last  question,  attaches 
only  to  the  will  of  man  (including  all  the  conative  faculties), 
1st,  to  its  permanent  disposition;  2d,  to  its  temporaiy  affections; 
and  3d,  to  its  volitions.  Some  of  these  states  and  actions  of 
the  will  are  not  moral,  i.  e.,  they  are  neither  approved  nor  con- 
demned by  the  conscience  as  virtuous  or  vicious.  But  virtue 
or  vice  belong  only  to  moral  states  of  the  soul,  and  to  volun- 
tary acts.  A  virtuous  character,  therefore,  is  one  in  which  the 
permanent  dispositions,  the  temporary  affections  and  desires, 
and  the  volitions  of  the  soul,  are  conformable  to  the  divine  law. 

A  vicious  character,  on  the  other  hand,  is  one  in  which  these 
states  and  acts  of  the  will  are  not  conformable  to  the  divine  law. 

The  acts  of  volition  are  virtuous  or  vicious  as  the  affections 
or  desires  by  which  they  are  determined  are  the  one  or  the 
other.  The  affections  and  desires  are  as  the  permanent  dispo- 
sitions or  the  character.  This  last  is  the  nature  of  the  will  itself, 
and  its  character  is  an  ultimate  unresolvable  fact.  Whether 
that  character  be  innate  or  acquired  by  habit,  the  fact  of  its 


WHAT   CONSTITUTES  MAN  A   FREE  AGENT.  287 

moral  quality  as  virtuous  or  vicious  remains  the  same,  and  the 
consequent  moral  accountability  of  the  agent  for  his  character 
is  unchanged. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  the  mere  possession  of  a  con- 
science which  approves  the  right  and  condemns  the  wrong, 
and  which  is  accompanied  with  more  or  less  lively  emotion, 
painful  or  pleasurable  as  it  condemns  or  approves,  does  not 
make  a  character  virtuous,  or  else  the  devils  and  lost  souls 
would  be  eminently  virtuous.  But  the  virtuous  man  is  he 
whose  heart  and  actions,  in  biblical  language,  or  whose  disposi- 
tions, affections,  and  volitions,  in  philosophical  language,  are  con- 
formed to  the  law  of  God. 

16.  State  both  branches  of  the  Utilitarian  theory  of  virtue. 

The  first  and  lowest  form  is  that  which  maintains  that  vir- 
tue consists  in  the  intelligent  desire  for  happiness.  Dr.  N.  W. 
Taylor  says — "  Nothing  is  good  but  happiness  and  the  means 
of  happiness,  and  nothing  evil  but  misery  and  the  means  of 
misery." 

The  second  and  higher  form  of  the  Utilitarian  theory  of 
virtue  is  that  it  consists  in  disinterested  benevolence,  and  that 
all  sin  is  a  form  of  selfishness.  This  is  shown,  Chapters  VIII., 
XII.,  and  XVIIL,  to  be  a  defective  and  therefore  a  false  view. 

17.  What  do  we  mean  ichen  we  say  tJiat  a  man  is  a  free  agent  ? 

1st.  That,  being  a  spirit,  he  originates  action.  Matter  acts 
only  as  it  is  acted  upon.  A  man  acts  from  the  spring  of  his 
own  active  power. 

2d.  That,  although  a  man  may  be  forced  by  fear  to  will  and 
to  do  many  things  which  he  would  neither  will  nor  do  if  it  were 
not  for  the  fear,  yet  he  never  can  be  made  to  will  what  he  does 
not  himself  desire  to  will,  in  full  view  of  all  the  circumstances 
of  the  case. 

3d.  That  he  is  furnished  with  a  reason  to  distinguish  be- 
tween the  true  and  the  false,  and  with  a  conscience,  the  organ 
of  an  innate  moral  law,  to  distinguish  between  right  and  wrong, 
in  order  that  his  desires  may  be  both  rational  and  righteous. 
And  yet  his  desires  are  not  necessarily  either  rational  or  right- 
eous, but  are  formed  under  the  light  of  reason  and  conscience, 
either  conformable  to  or  contrary  to  them,  according  to  the 
permanent,  habitual  dispositions  of  the  man;  i.  e.,  according 
to  his  own  character. 

18.  Shoio  that  this  attribute  of  human  nature  is  inalienable. 

A  man  is  said  to  be  free  in  willing  when  he  wills  in  con 


288  MORAL    CONSTITUTION   OF    THE    SOUL. 

formity  with  his  own  prevailing  dispositions  and  desires  at  the 
time.  A  man's  judgment  may  be  deceived,  or  his  actions  may 
be  coerced,  but  his  will  must  be  free,  because,  if  it  be  truly 
his  trill,  it  must  be  as  he  desires  it  to  be,  in  his  present  state 
of  mind  and  under  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case  at  the 
time. 

It  hence  follows  that  volition  is  of  its  very  essence  free, 
whether  the  agent  willing  or  the  act  willed  be  wise  or  foolish, 
good  or  bad. 

19.  Do  not  the  Scriptures,  hoivever,  speak  of  mans  being  under 
the  bondage  of  corruption,  and  his  liberty  as  lost  ? 

As  above  shown,  a  man  is  always  free  in  every  responsible 
volition,  as  much  when  he  chooses,  in  violation  of  the  law  of 
God  and  conscience,  as  in  conformity  to  it.  In  the  case  of 
unfallen  creatures,  and  of  perfectly  sanctified  men,  however,  the 
permanent  state  of  the  will,  the  voluntary  affections  and  desires 
(in  Scripture  language,  the  heart),  are  conformed  to  the  light 
of  reason  and  the  law  of  conscience  within,  and  to  the  law  of 
God,  in  its  objective  revelation.  There  are  no  conflicting  prin- 
ciples then  within  the  soul,  and  the  law  of  God,  instead  of 
coercing  the  will  by  its  commands  and  threatenings,  is  spon- 
taneously obeyed.  This  is  "the  liberty  of  the  sons  of  God;" 
and  the  law  becomes  the  "royal  law  of  liberty"  when  the 
law  in  the  heart  of  the  subject  perfectly  corresponds  with 
the  law  of  the  moral  Governor. 

In  the  case  of  fallen  men  and  angels,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  reason  and  conscience,  and  God's  law,  are  opposed  by  the 
governing  dispositions  of  the  will ;  and  the  agent,  although  free, 
because  he  wills  as  he  chooses,  is  said  to  be  in  bondage  to  an 
evil  nature,  and  "  the  servant  of  sin,"  because  he  is  impelled  by 
his  corrupt  dispositions  to  choose  that  which  he  sees  and  feels 
to  be  wrong  and  injurious,  and  because  the  threatenings  of 
God's  law  tend  to  coerce  his  will  through  fear. 

The  Scriptures  do  not  teach  that  the  unregenerate  is  not 
free  in  his  sin,  for  then  he  would  not  be  responsible.  But  the 
contrast  between  the  liberty  of  the  regenerate  and  the  bondage 
of  the  unregenerate  arises  from  the  fact  that  in  the  regenerate 
the  habitually  controlling  desires  and  tendencies  are  not  in 
conflict  with  the  voice  of  conscience  and  the  law  of  God.  The 
unregenerate,  viewed  psychologically,  is  free  when  he  sins,  be- 
cause he  wills  as  upon  the  whole  he  desires ;  but  viewed  theo- 
logically, in  his  relation  to  God's  law  as  enforced  by  reason  and 
conscience  and  Scripture,  he  may  be  said  to  be  in  bondage  to 
the  evil  dispositions  and  desires  of  his  own  heart,  which  he  sees 


DEFINITIONS    OF  LIBERTY.  28S 

to  be  both  wrong  and  foolish,  but  which,  nevertheless,  he  is 
impotent  to  change. 

20.  What  is  the  distinction  betiveen  liberty  and  ability? 

Liberty  consists  in  the  power  of  the  agent  to  will  as  he 
pleases,  from  the  fact  that  the  volition  is  determined  only  by  the 
character  of  the  agent  willing.  Ability  consists  in  the  power 
of  the  agent  to  change  his  own  subjective  state,  to  make  him- 
self prefer  what  he  does  not  prefer,  and  to  act  in  a  given  case 
in  opposition  to  the  coexistent  desires  and  preferences  of  the 
agent's  own  heart. 

Thus  man  is  as  truly  free  since  the  fall  as  before  it,  because 
he  wills  as  his  evil  heart  pleases.  But  he  has  lost  all  ability 
to  obey  the  law  of  God,  because  his  evil  heart  is  not  subject  to 
that  law,  neither  can  he  change  it. 

21.  Give  Turretiris  and  President  Edwards  definitions  of 
Liberty. 

Turretin,  L.  10,  Quaes.  1. — "As  only  three  things  are  found  m 
the  soul  besides  its  essence,  namely,  faculties,  habits  (habitus), 
acts,  so  will  (arbitrium)  in  the  common  opinion  is  regarded  as 
an  act  of  the  mind;  but  here  it  properly  signifies  neither  an  act 
nor  a  habit  which  may  be  separated  from  an  individual  man, 
and  which  also  determines  him  to  one  at  least  of  two  contra- 
ries ;  but  it  signifies  a  faculty,  not  one  which  is  vegetative  nor 
sensuous,  common  to  us  and  the  brutes,  in  which  there  can  be 
no  place  for  either  virtue  or  vice,  but  a  rational  faculty,  the 
possession  of  which  does  not  indeed  constitute  us  either  good 
or  bad,  but  through  the  states  of  which,  and  actions,  we  are 
capable  of  becoming  either  good  or  bad." 

Quaes.  3. — "  Since,  therefore,  the  essential  nature  of  liberty 
does  not  consist  in  indifference,  it  can  not  be  found  in  any  other 
principle  than  in  (lubentia  rationali)  a  rational  willingness  or 
desire,  whereby  a  man  does  what  he  prefers  or  chooses  from 
a  previous  judgment  of  the  reason  {facit  quod  lubet  jpraivio 
rationis  judicio).  Hence  two  elements  united  are  necessary  to 
constitute  this  liberty.  (1.)  to  Ttpoatperixov  (the  purpose),  so 
that  what  is  done  is  not  determined  by  a  blind,  and  certain 
brutish  impulse,  but  tu  Ttpoaipi6Eoa%,  and  from  a  previous  illu- 
mination by  the  reason,  and  from  a  practical  judgment  of 
the  intellect.  (2.)  to  ehov6iov  (the  spontaneous),  so  that  what 
is  done  is  determined  spontaneously  and  freely  and  without 
coaction." 

President  Edwards  "  On  the  Will,"  Section  5,  defines  Liberty 
as  being  "  the  power,  opportunity,  or  advantage,  that  any  one 
has  to  do  as  he  pleases/' 


290  MORAL    CONSTITUTION  OF   THE   SOUL. 

22.  What  are  the  two  senses  in  which  tlie  ivord  motive,  as  influ- 
encing the  will,  is  used?  and  in  which  sense  is  it  true  that  tlie  volition 
is  always  as  the  strongest  motive  ? 

1st.  A  motive  to  act  may  be  something  outside  the  soul  itself, 
as  the  value  of  money,  the  wishes  of  a  friend,  the  wisdom  or 
folly,  the  right  or  the  wrong,  of  any  act  in  itself  considered, 
or  the  appetites  and  impulses  of  the  body.  In  this  sense  it  is 
evident  that  the  man  does  not  always  act  according  to  the 
motive.  What  may  attract  one  man  may  repel  another,  or  a 
man  may  repel  the  attraction  of  an  outward  motive  by  the  su- 
perior force  of  some  consideration  drawn  from  within  the  soul 
itself.  So  that  the  dictum  is  true,  "The  man  makes  the  motive, 
and  not  the  motive  the  man." 

2d.  A  motive  to  act  may  be  the  state  of  the  man's  own  mind, 
as  desire  or  aversion  in  view  of  the  outward  object,  or  motive 
in  the  first  sense.  This  internal  motive  evidently  must  sway 
the  volition,  and  as  clearly  it  can  not  in  the  least  interfere  with 
the  perfect  freedom  of  the  man  in  willing,  since  the  internal 
motive  is  only  the  man  himself  desiring,  or  the  reverse,  accord- 
ing to  his  own  disposition  or  character. 

23.  May  there  not  be  several  conflicting  desires,  or  internal 
motives,  in  the  mind  at  the  same  time,  and  in  such  a  case  how  is 
the  will  decided? 

There  are  often  several  conflicting  desires,  or  impelling 
affections,  in  the  mind  at  the  same  time,  in  which  case  the 
strongest  desire,  or  the  strongest  group  of  desires,  drawing  in 
one  way,  determine  the  volition.  That  which  is  strongest 
proves  itself  to  be  such  only  by  the  result,  and  not  by  the 
intensity  of  the  feeling  it  excites.  Some  of  these  internal 
motives  are  very  vivid,  like  a  thirst  for  vengeance,  and  others 
calm,  as  a  sense  of  duty,  yet  often  the  calm  motive  proves 
itself  the  strongest,  and  draws  the  will  its  own  way.  This,  of 
course,  must  depend  upon  the  character  of  the  agent.  It  is  this 
inward  contest  of  opposite  principles  which  constitutes  the 
warfare  of  the  Christian  life.  It  is  the  same  experience  which 
occasions  a  great  part  of  that  confusion  of  consciousness  which 
prevails  among  men  with  respect  to  the  problem  of  the  will 
and  the  conditions  of  free  agency.  Man  often  acts  against 
motives,  but  never  without  motive.  And  the  motive  which 
actually  determines  the  choice  in  a  given  case  may  often  be 
the  least  clearly  defined  in  the  intellect,  and  the  least  vividly 
experienced  in  the  feelings.  Especially  in  sudden  surprises, 
and  in  cases  of  trivial  concernment,  the  volition  is  constantly 
determined  by  vague  impulses,  or  by  force  of  habit  almost  auto- 


CERTAINTY  NOT  INCONSISTENT  WITH  LIBERTY.       291 

matically.  Yet  in  every  case,  if  the  whole  contents  of  the 
mind,  at  the  time  of  the  volition,  be  brought  up  into  distinct 
consciousness,  it  will  be  found  that  the  man  chose,  as  upon  the 
whole  view  of  the  case  presented  by  the  understanding  at  the 
instant  he  desired  to  choose. 

24.  If  the  immediately  preceding  state  of  the  man's  mind  cer- 
tainly determines  the  act  of  his  wiU,  how  can  that  act  be  truly  free 
if  certainly  determined  ? 

This  objection  rests  solely  upon  the  confusion  of  the  two 
distinct  ideas  of  liberty  of  the  will  as  an  abstract  faculty,  and 
liberty  of  the  man  who  wills.  The  man  is  never  determined 
to  will  by  any  thing  without  himself.  He  always  himself  freely 
gives,  according  to  his  own  character,  all  the  weight  to  the 
external  influences  which  bear  upon  him  that  they  ever  possess. 
But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  mere  act  of  volition,  abstractly  con- 
sidered, is  determined  by  the  present  mental,  moral,  and  emo- 
tional state  of  the  man  at  the  moment  he  acts.  His  rational 
freedom,  indeed,  consists,  not  in  the  uncertainty  of  his  act,  but 
in  the  very  fact  that  his  whole  soul,  as  an  indivisible,  knowing, 
feeling,  moral  agent,  determines  his  own  action  as  it  pleases. 

25.  Prove  that  the  certainty  of  a  volition  is  in  no  degree  incon- 
sistent with  the  liberty  of  the  agent  in  that  act. 

1st.  God,  Christ,  and  saints  in  glory,  are  all  eminently  free 
in  their  holy  choices  and  actions,  yet  nothing  can  be  more 
certain  than  that,  to  all  eternity,  they  shall  always  will  accord- 
ing to  righteousness. 

2d.  Man  is  a  free  agent,  yet  of  every  infant,  from  his  birth, 
it  is  absolutely  certain  that  if  he  lives  he  will  sin. 

3d.  God,  from  eternity,  foreknows  all  the  free  actions  of 
men  as  certain,  and  he  has  foreordained  them,  or  made  them 
to  be  certain.  In  prophecy  he  has  infallibly  foretold  many  of 
them  as  certain.  And  in  regeneration  his  people  are  made 
"his  workmanship  created  unto  good  works,  which  God  has 
before  ordained  that  we  should  walk  in  them." 

4th.  Even  we,  if  we  thoroughly  understand  a  friend's  char- 
acter, and  all  the  present  circumstances  under  which  he  acts, 
are  often  absolutely  certain  how  he  will  freely  act,  though 
absent  from  us.  This  is  the  foundation  of  all  human  faith,  and 
hence  of  all  human  society. 

26.  What  is  that  tJieory  of  morral  liberty,  styled  "Liberty  of 
Indifference''  "  Self -determining  Power  of  the  Will,1"  "Poiver  of  Con- 
trary Choice,"  "Lil)erty  of  Contingency,'  etc.,  held  by  Arminians  and 
oilier  s  ? 


29£  MORAL    CONSTITUTION   OF   THE    SOUL. 

This  theory  maintains  that  it  is  essentially  involved  in  the 
idea  of  free  agency — 1st.  That  the  will  of  man  in  every  volition 
may  decide  in  opposition,  not  only  to  all  outward  inducements, 
but  equally  to  all  the  inward  judgments,  desires,  and  to  the 
whole  coexistent  inward  state  of  the  man  himself.  2d.  That 
man  is  conscious  in  every  free  volition,  that  he  might  have 
willed  precisely  the  opposite,  his  outward  circumstances  and 
his  entire  inward  state  remaining  the  same.  3d.  That  every 
free  volition  is  contingent,  i.  e.,  uncertain,  until  the  event,  since 
it  is  determined  by  nothing  but  the  bare  faculty  of  volition  on 
the  part  of  the  agent. — Hamilton's  "  Eeid,"  pp.  599-624. 

The  true  theory  of  moral  certainty,  on  the  other  hand,  is 
that  the  soul  is  a  unit;  that  the  will  is  not  self-determined,  but 
that  man,  when  he  wills,  is  self-determined;  and  that  his  voli- 
tion is  certainly  determined  by  his  own  internal,  rational,  moral, 
emotional  state  at  the  time,  viewed  as  a  whole. 

In  opposition  to  the  former  theory,  and  in  favor  of  the  lat- 
ter, we  argue — 1st.  That  the  character  of  the  agent  does  cer- 
tainly determine  the  character  of  his  free  acts,  and  that  the 
certainty  of  an  act  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  liberty  of  the 
agent  in  his  act. — See  above,  Question  12. 

2d.  The  Christian  doctrines  of  divine  foreknowledge,  fore- 
ordination,  providence,  and  regeneration.  For  the  Scriptural 
evidence  of  these,  see  their  respective  chapters.  They  all 
show  that  the  volitions  of  men  are  neither  uncertain  nor  in- 
determinate. 

3d.  We  agree  with  the  advocates  of  the  opposite  theory  in 
maintaining  that  in  every  free  act  we  are  conscious  that  we 
had  power  to  perform  it,  or  not  to  perform  it,  as  we  chose. 
"  But  we  maintain  that  we  are  none  the  less  conscious  that  this 
intimate  conviction  that  we  had  power  not  to  perform  an  act 
is  conditional.  That  is,  we  are  conscious  that  the  act  might 
have  been  otherwise,  had  other  views  or  feelings  been  present 
to  our  minds,  or  been  allowed  their  due  weight.  A  man  can 
not  prefer  against  his  preference,  or  choose  against  his  choice. 
A  man  may  have  one  preference  at  one  time,  and  another  at 
another.  He  may  have  various  conflicting  feelings  or  princi- 
ples in  action  at  the  same  time,  but  he  can  not  have  coexisting 
opposite  preferences." 

4th.  The  theory  of  the  "self-determining  power  of  the  will" 
regards  the  will,  or  the  mere  faculty  of  volition,  as  isolated  from 
the  other  faculties  of  the  soul,  as  an  independent  agent  within 
an  agent.  Now,  the  soul  is  a  unit.  Consciousness  and  Script- 
ure alike  teach  us  that  the  man  is  the  free,  responsible  agent 
By  this  dissociation  of  the  volitional  faculty  from  the  moral 
dispositions  and  desires,  the  volitions  can  have  no  moral  char* 


ULTIMATE    SEAT   OF  RESPONSIBILITY.  2D3 

acter.  By  its  dissociation  from  the  reason,  the  volitions  can 
have  no  rational  character.  If  they  are  not  determined  by 
the  inward  state  of  the  man  himself,  they  must  be  fortuitous, 
and  beyond  his  control.  He  can  not  be  free  if  his  will  is 
independent  alike  of  his  head  and  his  heart,  and  he  ought 
not  to  be  held  responsible. — See  "Bib.  Rep.,"  January,  1857, 
Article  V. 

27.  Why  is  a  man  responsible  for  his  outward  actions;  why  for 
his  volitions;  why  for  his  affections  and  desires;  and  'prove  that  Ac 
is  responsible  for  his  affections? 

"A  man  is  responsible  for  his  outward  acts,  because  they 
are  determined  by  the  will ;  he  is  responsible  for  his  volitions, 
because  they  are  determined  by  his  own  principles  and  feelings 
(desires) ;  he  is  responsible  for  his  principles  and  feelings,  be- 
cause of  their  inherent  nature  as  good  or  bad,  and  because  they 
are  his  own  and  constitute  his  character." — "  Bib.  Rep.,"  Jan- 
uary, 1857,  p.  130. 

It  is  the  teaching  of  Scripture  and  the  universal  judgment 
of  men,  that  "a  good  man  out  of  the  good  treasures  of  his 
heart  bringeth  forth  that  which  is  good,"  and  that  a  "wicked 
man  out  of  the  evil  treasures  of  his  heart  bringeth  forth  that 
which  is  evil."  The  act  derives  its  moral  character  from  the 
state  of  the  heart  from  which  it  springs,  and  a  man  is  respon- 
sible for  the  moral  state  of  his  heart,  whether  that  state  be 
innate,  formed  by  regenerating  grace,  or  acquired  by  himself, 
because — 1st.  Of  the  obliging  nature  of  moral  right,  and  the 
ill  desert  of  sin ;  2d.  Because  a  man's  affections  and  desires  are 
himself  loving  or  refusing  that  which  is  right.  It  is  the  judg- 
ment of  all,  that  a  profane  or  malignant  man  is  to  be  repro- 
bated, no  matter  how  he  became  so. 

28.  How  does  Dr.  D.  D.  WJiedon  slate  and  contrast  the  position 
of  Arminian  and  Calvinistic  philosophy  ? 

Dr.  Whedon,  in  the  "  Bibliotheca  Sacra,"  April,  1862,  says, 
"  To  this  maxim,  that  it  is  no  matter  how  we  come  by  our  evil 
volitions,  dispositions,  or  nature  in  order  to  responsibility,  pro- 
vided that  we  really  possess  them,  we  (the  Methodists)  oppose 
the  counter  maxim  that  in  order  to  responsibility  for  a  given  act 
cr  state,  poiver  in  the  agent  for  a  contrary  act  or  state  is  requisite. 
In  other  words  poiver  underlies  responsibility."  The  only  limit 
which  he  admits  to  this  principle  is  the  case  of  an  inability  in- 
duced by  the  free  act  of  the  agent  himself.  This,  he  says,  is  a 
fundamental  maxim  by  which  all  the  issues  between  Armin* 
ianism  and  Calvinism  are  determined. 


294  MORAL    CONSTITUTION   OF    THE    SOUL. 

29.  Show  that  the  Arminian  view  leads  to  consequences  ir  con- 
sistent with  the  gospel,  and  that  Hue  Calvinistic  view  is  true. 

Dr.  Whedon  admits  that  Adam  after  his  fall  lost  all  ability 
to  obey  the  law  of  God,  and  was  responsible  for  that  inability 
and  all  its  consequences,  because,  having  been  created  with  full 
ability,  he  lost  it  by  his  own  free  act.  He  also  admits  that 
every  child  of  Adam  is  born  into  the  world  with  a  corrupt 
nature,  and  without  any  ability  to  obey  the  law  of  God.  But 
no  infant  is  responsible  nor  punishable  for  this  want  of  ability 
nor  for  any  sinful  action  which  results  from  it,  because  it  was 
entailed  upon  him,  without  any  fault  of  his  own,  by  the  sin  of 
another.  In  the  way  of  just  compensation,  however,  for  this 
their  great  misfortune  of  being  innocent  sinners,  God  gives  to 
all  men  in  Christ  sufficient  grace,  and  hence  gracious  ability  to 
obey  the  gospel  law.  If  a  man  uses  this  gracious  ability  he  is 
saved,  and  faith  and  evangelical  obedience  is  accounted  for 
perfect  righteousness ;  if  he  does  not  use  this  gracious  ability  he 
is  condemned  as  responsible  for  that  abuse  of  ability,  and  con- 
sequently responsible  for  all  the  sinful  feelings,  actions,  and 
subsequent  inability  which  result  from  that  abuse  of  power. 

We  argue  that  it  follows  from  this  Arminian  view — 1st.  That 
salvation  by  Christ  is  not  of  free  grace,  but  a  tardy  and  incom- 
plete compensation  granted  men  for  undeserved  evils  brought 
upon  them  at  their  birth  in  consequence  of  Adam's  sin.  2d.  The 
"  grace  "  given  to  all  men  is  as  necessary  to  render  them  pun- 
ishable sinners,  as  it  is  to  save  their  souls.  In  fact,  according 
to  this  principle,  grace  sends  more  souls  to  hell  by  making 
them  responsible  through  the  possession  of  ability,  than  it 
sends  to  lieaven  through  faith  in  Christ.  3d.  Those  who  die 
in  infancy,  not  being  punishable,  because  not  responsible,  for 
original  sin,  go  to  heaven  as  a  matter  of  natural  right. 

On  the  contrary  we  maintain  that  the  responsibility  of  a 
man  for  his  moral  dispositions,  affections,  and  desires,  no 
matter  how  they  may  have  originated,  if  he  be  a  sane  man, 
is  an  ultimate  fact  of  consciousness,  confirmed  by  Scripture, 
conscience,  and  the  universal  judgments  of  men.  An  act  de- 
rives its  moral  character  from  the  state  of  the  heart  from  which 
it  springs,  but  the  state  of  the  heart  does  not  acquire  its  moral 
character  from  the  action.  But  the  moral  quality  of  the  state 
of  the  heart  itself  is  inherent,  and  moral  responsibility  is  insep- 
arable from  moral  quality. 

This  is  so — 1st.  Because  of  the  essential  nature  of  right 
and  wrong.  The  essence  of  right  is  that  it  ought  to  be — that  it 
obliges  the  will.  The  essence  of  wrong  is  that  it  ought  not  to  be 
— that  the  will  is  under  obligation  to  the  contrary,  and  that 


ULTIMATE    SEAT   OF  RESPONSIBILITY.  295 

the  doing  of  it  involves  iU,  desert.  2d.  Because  a  man's  moral 
affections  or  desires  are  nothing  other  than  the  man  himself 
loving  or  abhorring  goodness.  It  is  the  judgment  of  all  men 
that  a  profane  and  malignant  man  is  to  be  reprobated  no  matter 
how  he  became  so.  It  is  the  character,  not  the  origin,  of  the 
moral  disposition  of  the  heart  which  is  the  real  question. 
Christ  says,  "A  good  man  out  of  the  good  treasure  of  his 
heart  bringeth  forth  that  which  is  good,  and  a  wicked  man 
out  of  the  evil  treasure  of  his  heart  bringeth  forth  that  which 
is  eviL" — Luke  vi.  4£ 


CHAPTER    XVI. 

CREATION  AND  ORIGINAL  STATE  OF  MAN. 

1.  State  the  evidence  that  the  human  race  was  originated  by  an 
immediate  creation  by  God. 

1st.  This  is  explicitly  taught  in  the  Bible. — Gen.  i.  26,  27;  ii.  7. 

2d.  It  is  implied  by  the  immeasurable  gulf  which  separates 
man  in  his  lowest  savage  condition  from  the  very  nearest  order 
of  the  lower  creation;  indicating  an  amazing  superiority  in 
respect  to  qualities  in  which  the  two  are  comparable,  and  an 
absolute  difference  of  kind  in  respect  to  man's  intellectual,  moral, 
and  religious  nature,  and  capacity  for  indefinite  progress.  Even 
Prof.  Huxley,  who  rashly  maintains  an  extreme  position  with 
regard  to  the  anatomical  relations  of  man  to  the  inferior  ani- 
mals, admits  that  when  man's  higher  nature  is  taken  into  the 
account  there  exists  between  him  and  the  nearest  beast  "an 
enormous  gulf,  a  divergence  immeasurable  and  practically  infi- 
nite."— "  Primeval  Man,"  by  the  Duke  of  Argyle. 

3d.  It  is  implied  by  the  fact  revealed  in  the  Scriptures  and 
realized  in  history,  that  man  was  destined  to  exercise  universal 
dominion  over  all  other  creatures  and  over  the  system  of  na- 
ture. Therefore  he  could  not  be  a  mere  product  of  nature. 
One  of  a  series  of  co-ordinate  beings. 

4th.  It  is  implied  by  the  fact  that  men  are  called  "sons  of 
GocL"  and  in  the  whole  scheme  of  Providence  and  Redemption 
are  treated  as  such.  It  is  universally  testified  to  by  man's 
moral  and  religious  nature,  all  the  more  strongly  the  more 
these  elements  of  his  nature  are  enlightened  and  developed. 
And  the  fact  is  pre-eminently  signalized  by  the  assumption  of 
our  nature  into  personal  union  with  the  Godhead. 

It  is  obvious  that  as  the  intellectual,  moral,  religious,  and 
social  natures  and  habits  of  men  are  transmitted  by  natural 
descent  just  as  much  as  their  anatomical  structure,  it  is  not 
only  arbitrary  but  absurd  to  leave  out  of  view  the  one  set  of 
elements,  while  retaining  the  other,  in  any  scientific  investiga- 


THE    ANTIQUITY   OF  MAN.  297 

tion  of  the  question  of  his  origin,  or  of  his  place  and  relations  in 
the  order  of  nature. 

2.  Give  tJie  present  slate  of  tluc  question  as  to  the  antiquity  of 
the  human  race. 

1st.  The  Seriptures  and  the  entire  body  of  the  results  of 
modern  science  agree  in  teaching  that  man  came  into  being 
on  this  earth  the  last  of  all  its  organized  inhabitants.  There 
has  been  no  new  species  introduced  since  the  advent  of  man. 

2d.  From  the  prima  facie  indications  afforded  in  the  incom- 
plete historical  and  genealogical  records  of  the  pre-Abrahamic 
period  found  in  the  first  chapters  of  Genesis,  the  generally  re- 
ceived systems  of  biblical  chronology  have  been  constructed. 
The  shorter  system,  constructed  by  Usher  from  the  Hebrew 
Text,  fixes  the  date  of  the  creation  of  man  about  4,000  years 
before  the  birth  of  Christ,  or  about  6,000  years  ago.  The  longer 
system,  constructed  by  Hales  and  others  from  the  Septuagint 
and  Josephus,  makes  the  date  of  the  creation  of  man  about 
5,500  years  before  Christ,  or  about  7,500  years  ago. 

Of  these  biblical  systems  of  chronology,  Prof.  W.  H.  Green, 
D.D.,  of  Princeton,  says,  ("  Pentateuch  Vindicated,"  n.  p.  128) — 
"  It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  there  is  an  element  of  uncer: 
tainty  in  a  computation  of  time  which  rests  upon  genealogies 
as  the  sacred  chronology  so  largely  does.  Who  is  to  certify 
us  that  the  antediluvian  and  ante-Abrahamic  genealogies  have 
not  been  condensed  in  the  same  manner  as  the  post-Abrahamie. 
If  Matthew  omitted  names  from  the  ancestry  of  our  Lord  in 
order  to  equalize  the  three  great  periods  over  which  he  passes, 
may  not  Moses  have  done  the  same  in  order  to  bring  out  seven 
generations  from  Adam  to  Enoch,  and  ten  from  Adam  to  Noah? 
Our  current  chronology  is  based  upon  the  prima  facie  impres- 
sion of  these  genealogies.  This  Ave  shall  adhere  to  until  we 
shall  see  good  reason  for  giving  it  up.  But  if  these  recently 
discovered  indications  of  the  antiquity  of  man,  over  which 
scientific  circles  are  now  so  excited,  shall,  when  carefully  in- 
spected and  thoroughly  weighed,  demonstrate  all  that  any 
have  imagined  they  might  demonstrate,  what  then?  They 
will  simply  show  that  the  popular  chronology  is  based  upon  a 
wrong  interpretation,  and  that  a  select  and  partial  register 
of  ante-Abrahamic  names  has  been  mistaken  for  a  complete 
one." 

3d.  Modern  research  has  developed  a  vast  and  constantly 
increasing  amount  of  evidence  that  the  human  race  has  existed 
upon  the  earth  many  centuries  longer  than  is  allowed  for  even 
by  the  chronology  of  the  Septuagint.  The  principal  classes 
of  evidence  upon  this  point  are  as  follows. 


298  CREATION  AND    ORIGINAL    STATE    OF  MAN. 

(1.)  Ethnological  Pictures,  showing  that  all  the  divergent  pe- 
culiarities of  the  Caucasian  and  African  types  were  fully  devel- 
oped as  they  now  exist,  nineteen  hundred  years  before  Christ, 
are  found  on  the  Egyptian  Monuments.  In  all  historic  time 
no  changes  of  climate  or  habit  have  produced  appreciable 
changes  in  any  variety  of  the  race,  therefore,  we  must  conclude 
that  many  centuries  as  well  as  great  changes  were  requisite 
to  make  such  great  permanent  variations  in  the  descendants 
of  the  same  pair.  The  Duke  of  Argyle  well  says,  "  And  pre- 
cisely in  proportion  as  we  value  our  belief  in  the  Unity  of 
the  Human  Race  ought  we  to  be  ready  and  walling  to  accept 
any  evidence  on  the  question  of  Man's  Antiquity.  The  older 
the  human  family  can  be  proved  to  be,  the  more  possible  and 
probable  it  is  that  it  has  descended  from  a  single  pair." — "  Pri- 
meval Man,"  p.  128. 

(2.)  The  science  of  Language,  which  proves  that  in  very 
remote  ages  all  the  nations  which  speak  cognate  languages 
must  have  lived  together,  speaking  the  same  language  and 
branching  from  a  common  stock.  And  that  unknown  ages 
must  have  been  consumed  in  the  development  of  so  many  and 
so  various  dialects. 

(3.)  The  science  of  Geology.  The  remains  of  human  bodies 
and  of  human  works  of  art  have  been  found  embedded  in  allu- 
vial deposits  in  gravel  pits,  and  in  caves  at  such  depth  and  in 
such  association  with  the  remains  of  extinct  species  of  animals, 
as  to  prove  conclusively  that  since  man  existed  on  the  earth 
whole  groups  of  great  quadrupeds  have  become  totally  extinct; 
the  climate  of  the  Northern  Temperate  Zone  has  been  revolu- 
tionized, and  very  radical  changes  have  been  wrought  in  the 
physical  Geography  of  the  countries  which  have  been  examined. 

3.  Hoiv  can  the  Unity  of  tJie  Human  Bace  as  descended  from  a 
single  pair  be  proved  ? 

Agassiz  is  the  only  naturalist  of  the  highest  rank  who  teaches 
that  all  species  and  varieties  of  organized  beings  must  have 
had  an  independent  origin,  and  been  propagated  from  differ- 
ent parents.  He  holds  consequently  that  mankind  is  a  genus, 
originally  created  in  several  specific  varieties.  The  same  view 
is  ably  advocated  in  a  recent  work  which  has  attracted  atten- 
tion in  England,  viz.,  "The  Genesis  of  the  Earth  and  of  Man." 

That  man,  although  generically  different  from  all  other 
creatures,  is  nevertheless  one  single  species  is  proved — 

1st.  From  Scripture. — Acts  xvii.  26;  Rom.  v.  12;  1  Cor. 
xv.  21,  22. 

2d.  Because  the  absolute  unity  of  the  race  by  descent  from 
one  pair  is  essentially  implied  in  the  propagation  by  imputation 


TRICHOTOMY  NOT   TAUGHT  IN   SCRIPTURE.  299 

and  by  descent  of  guilt  and  corruption  from  Adam,  and  of  the 
representative  Headship  and  vicarious  obedience  and  suffering 
of  Jesus  Christ. 

3d.  The  higher  moral  and  religious  natures  of  all  varieties 
of  mankind  are  specifically  identical. 

4th.  The  same  is  generally  indicated  by  history  and  the 
science  of  comparative  philology. 

5th.  Greater  differences  have  been  generated  in  the  pro- 
cesses of  domestication  between  different  branches  of  the  same 
species  of  lower  animals,  as  among  pigeons  or  dogs  for  instance, 
than  exists  between  the  different  varieties  of  mankind. 

6th.  It  is  a  fact  universally  admitted  by  naturalists,  that  the 
union  of  different  species  are  never  freely  fertile,  and  that  the 
offspring  of  such  union  are  seldom  if  ever  fertile.  But  all  the 
varieties  of  mankind  freely  intermix,  and  the  offspring  of  all 
such  unions  propagate  themselves  indefinitely  with  perfect 
facility. 

4.  Show  that  tJie  Scriptures  teach  that  human  nature  is  com- 
posed of  tivo  and  only  two  distinct  substances. 

The  Scriptures  teach  that  man  is  composed  of  two  elements, 
ib>2,  <*<»,ua,  corpus,  body,  and  rrn.  itvev/ia,  ipvxv,  Ttvor),  Cco^  animus, 

soul,  spirit.     This  is  clearly  revealed — 

1st.  In  the  account  of  creation. — Gen.  ii.  7.  The  body  was 
formed  of  the  earth,  and  then  God  breathed  into  man  the  breath 
of  life  and  he  became  thenceforth  a  living  soul. 

2d.  In  the  account  given  of  death,  Eccle.  xii.  7,  and  of  the 
state  of  soul  immediately  after  death,  while  the  bodies  are 
decaying  in  the  ground. — 2  Cor.  v.  1-8;  Phil.  i.  23,  24;  Acts 
vii.  59. 

3d.  In  all  the  current  language  of  Scripture  these  two  ele- 
ments are  always  assumed,  and  none  other  are  mentioned. 

5.  State  the  view  of  those  who  maintain  that  our  nature  em* 
braces  three  distinct  elements,  and  its  supposed  Biblical  basis. 

Pythagoras,  and  after  him  Plato,  and  subsequently  the  mass 
of  Greek  and  Roman  philosophers,  maintained  that  man  con- 
sists of  three  constituent  elements:  the  rational  spirit,  vovt,  itvevfxa, 
mens;  the  animal  soul,  tyvxn,  anima;  the  body,  ddojua,  corpus. 
Hence  this  usage  of  the  words  became  stamped  upon  the 
Greek  popular  speech.  And  consequently  the  apostle  uses  all 
three  when  intending  to  express  exhaustively  in  popular  lan- 
guage the  totality  of  man  and  his  belongings.  "  I  pray  God 
that  your  whole  spirit,  soul,  and  body  be  preserved  blameless." 
1  Thess.  v.  23;  Heb.  iv.  12;  1  Cor.  xv.  44.     Hence  some  theo 


300  CREATION  AND    ORIGINAL    STATE    OF  MAN. 

logians  conclude  that  it  is  a  doctrine  given  by  divine  inspira- 
tion that  human  nature  is  constituted  of  three  distinct  elements 

6.  Refute  this  position  and  show  that  the  words  tyvxv  and  itvev^a 
are  used  in  the  New  Testament  interchangeably. 

The  use  made  of  these  terms  by  the  apostles  proves  nothing 
more  than  that  they  used  words  in  their  current  popular  sense 
to  express  divine  ideas.  The  word  nvevjua  designates  the  one 
soul  emphasizing  its  quality  as  rational.  The  word  i>vxv  desig- 
nates the  same  soul  emphasizing  its  quality  as  the  vital  and 
animating  principle  of  the  body.  The  two  are  used  together 
to  express  popularly  the  entire  man. 

That  the  xvev/ia  and  ipvxv  are  distinct  entities  can  not  be 
the  doctrine  of  the  New  Testament,  because  they  are  habitually 
used  interchangeably  and  often  indifferently.  Thus  ipvxv  as 
well  as  7tvevjua  is  used  to  designate  the  soul  as  the  seat  of  the 
higher  intellectual  faculties. — Matt.  xvi.  26;  1  Pet.  i.  22;  Matt. 
x.  28.  Thus  also  7tv£v/ua  as  well  as  rpvxr'/  is  used  to  designate 
the  soul  as  the  animating  principle  of  the  body. — James  ii.  26. 
Deceased  persons  are  indifferently  called  ipvxai,  Acts  ii.  27,  31; 
Rev.  vi.  9;  xx.  4;  and  7tv£v/iara,  Luke  xxiv.  37,  39;  Heb.  xii.  23. 

7.  What  do  our  standards  teach  as  to  the  state  of  man  at  his 
creation  ? 

The  "Conf.  Faith,"'  Ch.  iv,  §  2,  "  L.  Cat,"  Q.  17,  and  "S. 
Cat.,"  Q.  10,  teach  the  following  points — 1st.  God  created  man 
in  his  own  image.  2d.  A  reasonable  and  immortal  soul  endued 
with  knowledge,  righteousness,  and  true  holiness,  and  placed 
in  dominion  over  the  creatures.  3d.  Having  God's  law  written 
on  his  heart  and  power  to  fulfil  it,  and  yet  under  possibility  ot 
transgressing,  being  left  to  the  freedom  of  his  own  will,  which 
was  subject  to  change. 

The  likeness  of  man  to  God  respected — 1st.  The  kind  of  his 
nature;  man  was  created  like  God  a  free,  rational,  personal 
Spirit.  2d.  He  was  created  like  God  as  to  the  perfection  of 
his  nature;  in  knowledge,  Col.  iii.  10;  and  righteousness  and 
true  holiness,  Eph.  iv.  24;  and  3d.  In  his  dominion  over  nature. 
Gen.  i.  28. 

8.  Give  in  psijchological  terms  the  true  state  of  the  question. 

In  the  preceding  chapter  it  was  shown  that  the  volition 
is  determined  and  derives  its  character  from  the  desires  and 
affections  which  prompt  to  it;  and  that  the  temporary  affec- 
tions and  desires,  which  prompt  the  volitions  in  any  given 
case,  themselves  spring  from  the  permanent  habit,  disposition, 
or  tendency  of  will  which  constitute  the  moral  character  of  the 


ORIGINAL    RIGHTEOUSNESS    OF  ADAM.  301 

man.  It  was  also  shown  that  the  moral  character  ofthese  per- 
manent dispositions  of  will,  and  the  responsibility  of  the  man 
for  them,  is  an  ultimate  fact,  incapable  of  being  referred  back 
to  any  principle  more  fundamental  or  essential  and  confirmed 
by  the  unanimous  judgment  of  the  human  race. 

It  hence  follows  that  the  original  righteousness  and  holi- 
ness in  which  Adam  was  created  consisted  in  the  perfect  con- 
formity of  all  the  moral  dispositions  and  affections  of  his  will 
(in  Bible  language,  heart)  to  the  law  of  God — of  which  his 
unclouded  and  faithful  conscience  was  the  organ. 

As  a  consequence  there  was  no  schism  in  man's  nature. 
The  will,  moving  freely  in  conformity  to  the  lights  of  reason 
and  of  conscience,  held  in  harmonious  subjection  all  the  lower 
principles  of  body  and  soul.  In  perfect  equilibrium  a  perfect 
soul  dwelt  in  a  perfect  body. 

This  original  righteousness  is  natural  in  the  sense  (1)  that 
it  was  the  moral  perfection  of  man's  nature  as  it  came  from 
the  hands  of  the  Creator.  It  belonged  to  that  nature  origi- 
nally, and  (2)  is  always  essential  to  its  perfection  as  to  quality. 
(3)  It  would  also  have  been  propagated,  if  man  had  not  fallen, 
just  as  native  depravity  is  now  propagated  by  natural  descent. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  is  not  natural  in  the  sense  that  reason  or 
conscience  or  free  agency  are  essential  constituents  of  human 
nature,  necessary  to  constitute  any  one  a  real  man.  As  a  qual- 
ity it  is  essential  to  the  perfection,  but  as  a  constituent  it  is  not 
necessary  to  the  reality  of  human  nature. 

9.  Prove  that  Adam  was  created  holy  in  the  above  sense. 

It  belongs  to  the  essence  of  man's  nature  that  he  is  a  moral 
responsible  agent. 

But,  1st.  As  a  moral  creature  man  was  created  in  the  image 
of  God. — Gen.  i.  27. 

2d.  God  pronounced  all  his  works,  man  included,  to  be  "very 
good." — Gen  i.  31.  The  goodness  of  a  mechanical  provision  is 
essentially  its  fitness  to  attain  its  end.  The  "goodness"  of  a 
moral  agent  can  be  nothing  other  than  his  conformity  of  will 
to  the  moral  law.  Moral  indifferency  in  a  moral  agent  is  itself 
of  the  nature  of  sin. 

3d.  This  truth  is  asserted. — Eccle.  vii.  29. 

4th.  In  regeneration,  man  is  renewed  in  the  image  of  God ; 
in  creation,  man  was  made  in  the  image  of  God;  the  image, 
in  both  cases,  must  be  the  same,  and  includes  holiness. — Eph. 
iv.  24. 

5th.  Christ  is  called,  1  Cor.  xv.  45,  o  edxaros  'ASd/i,  and  in 
v.  47,  Sevzepos  avOpoonoi.  He  is  recognized  by  friend  and  foe 
as  the  only  perfect  man  in  all  history,  the  exemplar  of  normal 


302  CREATION  AND    ORIGINAL    STATE    OF  MAN. 

humanity.  Yet  his  human  nature  was  formed  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  antecedently  to  all  action  of  its  own,  absolutely  holy. 
He  was  called  in  his  mother's  womb,  "That  Holy  Thing." 
Luke  i.  35. 

10.  What  is  the  Pelagian  doctrine  with  regard  to  the  original 
state  of  man  ? 

The  Pelagians  hold — 1st.  That  a  man  can  rightly  be  held 
responsible  only  for  his  unbiassed  volitions;  and  2d.  Conse- 
quently moral  character  as  antecedent  to  moral  action  is  an 
absurdity,  since  only  that  disposition  is  moral  which  has  been 
formed  as  a  habit  by  means  of  preceding  unbiassed  action  of 
the  free  will,  i.  e.,  man  must  choose  his  own  character,  or  he 
can  not  be  responsible  for  it. 

They  hold,  therefore,  that  man's  will  at  his  creation  was 
not  only  free,  but,  moreover,  in  a  state  of  moral  equilibrium, 
equally  disposed  to  virtue  or  vice. 

11.  State  and  contrast  the  positions  of  the  Pelagians,  of  Dr.  D. 
D.  Whedon  (Arminian),  and  of  tlve  Calvinists,  as  to  innate  right- 
eousness and  sin. 

The  Pelagian  holds — 1st.  That  Adam  was  created  a  moral 
agent,  but  with  no  positive  moral  character;  that  he  was  at 
first  indifferent  either  to  good  or  evil,  and  left  free  to  form  his 
own  character  D}*-  his  own  free,  unbiassed  choice.  2d.  That  all 
men  are  born  into  the  world  in  all  essential  particulars  in  the 
same  moral  state  in  which  Adam  was  created.  3d.  That  man 
is  naturally  mortal,  and  that  the  mortality  of  the  race  is  not 
in  consequence  of  sin. 

Dr.  D.  D.  Whedon  (Arminian),  in  "  Bib.  Sacra,"  April,  1862, 
p.  257,  while  agreeing  with  the  Pelagian  in  the  main  as  to 
the  original  moral  state  into  which  Adam  was  introduced  by 
creation,  differs  from  him  as  to  the  moral  condition  into  which 
the  descendants  of  Adam  are  introduced  by  birth.  He  admits 
that  a  "  created "  inclination  may  be  either  good  and  hence  lov- 
able, or  bad  and  hence  hateful — but  he  denies  that  the  agent 
can  be  in  the  first  case  rewardable,  or  in  the  second  case 
punishable  for  his  disposition,  the  character  of  which  he  did 
not  determine  for  himself  by  previously  unbiassed  volitions. 
If  Adam  had  formed  for  himself  a  holy  character  he  would  have 
been  both  good  and  rewardable.  Since  he  formed  for  himself 
a  sinful  character  he  was  both  bad  and  punishable.  His  de- 
scendants are  propagated  with  corrupt  natures  without  any 
fault  of  their  own,  therefore  they  are  bad  and  corrupt,  but  not 
deserving  of  punishment. 


MAN  RESPONSIBLE  FOR  INNATE  DISPOSITION.         303 

In  opposition  to  these  positions  the  orthodox  hold — 1st 
There  are  permanent  dispositions  and  inclinations  which  de» 
termine  the  volitions.  2d.  Many  of  these  inclinations  are  good, 
many  are  bad,  and  many  others  are  morally  indifferent  in  their 
essential  nature.  3d.  These  moral  dispositions  may  be  in« 
nate  as  well  as  acquired,  in  which  case  the  agent  is  as  respon* 
sible  for  them  as  he  is  for  any  other  state  or  act  of  his  wilL 
4th.  Adam  was  created  with  holy  dispositions  prompting  to 
holy  action.  He  did  not  make  himself  holy,  but  was  made  eo 
by  God. 

12.  Why  do  ice  judge  that  men  are  morally  responsible  for  innate 
and  concreated  dispositions  ? 

1st.  Children  are  born  with  moral  dispositions  and  tenden- 
cies very  various.  Yet  it  is  the  spontaneous  and  universal 
judgment  of  men,  that  men  naturally  malicious  and  cruel 
and  false  are  both  to  be  abhorred  and  held  morally  respon- 
sible for  their  tempers  and  actions.  2d.  The  Scriptures,  as 
will  be  shown  under  Ch.  XIX.,  on  "  Original  Sin,"  teach  that 
all  men  come  into  the  world  with  an  inherent  tendency  in 
their  nature  to  sin,  which  tendency  is  itself  sin  and  worthy 
of  punishment.  3d.  President  Edwards  "  On  Will,"  Pt.  4,  §  1, 
says,  "The  essence  of  the  virtue  and  vice  of  dispositions  of 
the  heart  and  acts  of  the  will  lie  not  in  their  cause  but  in  their 
nature."  And  even  the  Arminian,  John  Wesley,  says,  as  quoted 
by  Kichard  Watson,  "Holiness  is  not  the  right  use  of  our  powers, 
it  is  the  right  state  of  our  powers.  It  is  the  right  disposition 
of  our  soul,  the  right  temper  of  our  mind.  Take  that  with  you 
and  you  will  no  more  dream  that  God  could  not  create  man  in 
righteousness  and  true  holiness."  "  What  is  holiness  ?  Is  it 
not  essentially  love  ?  And  can  not  God  shed  abroad  this  love 
in  any  soul  without  his  concurrence,  and  antecedent  to  his 
knowledge  or  consent?  And  supposing  this  to  be  done,  will 
love  change  its  nature?  will  it  be  no  longer  holiness?  This 
argument  can  never  be  sustained." 

13.  Prove  that  a  state  of  moral  indifferency  is  itself  sin,  and 
that  if  it  were  not  so  no  exercise  of  a  volitional  faculty  so  condi- 
tioned could  possibly  originate  a  moral  act  or  character. 

That  moral  indifferency  on  the  part  of  a  moral  agent  in  view 
of  a  moral  obligation  is  itself  sin  is  self-evident.  The  essence 
of  morality  is  that  it  obliges  the  will  of  a  moral  agent.  A 
non-moral  agent  may  be  indifferent  to  moral  things.  A  morai 
agent  may  be  indifferent  to  indifferent  things.  But  from  the 
very  nature  of  the  case  it  is  absurd  to  pretend  that  a  morai 
agent  can  be  indifferent  with  respect  to  a  known  moral  obliga 


304  CREATION  AND    ORIGINAL    STATE    OF  MAN. 

tion  resting  on  himself,  and  yet  that  that  indifference  is  non- 
moral,  but  the  prerequisite  condition  of  all  morality. 

Besides  a  morally  indifferent  disposition  can  not  originate 
a  holy  act  or  habit.  The  goodness  or  badness  of  an  act  de- 
pends upon  the  goodness  or  badness  of  the  disposition  or  affec- 
tion which  prompted  it.  It  is  the  moral  state  of  the  will  (or 
Jieart,  see  Matt.  vii.  17-20  and  xii.  33)  which  makes  the  act  of 
the  will  right  or  wrong,  and  not  the  act  which  makes  the  state 
wrong.  A  man's  motives  may  be  right,  and  yet  his  choice 
may  be  wrong  through  his  mistake  of  its  nature,  because  of 
ignorance  or  insanity ;  yet  if  all  the  prevalent  dispositions  and 
desires  of  the  heart  in  any  given  case  be  right,  the  volition 
must  be  morally  right ;  if  wrong,  the  volition  must  be  morally 
wrong;  if  indifferent,  or  neither  right  or  wrong,  the  volition 
must  be  morally  indifferent  also.  Hence  appears  the  absurdity 
of  their  position.  If  Adam  had  been  created,  as  they  feign, 
with  a  will  equally  disposed  either  to  good  or  evil,  his  first 
act  could  have  had  no  moral  character  whatever.  And  yet 
Pelagians  assume  that  Adam's  first  act,  which  had  no  moral 
character  itself,  determined  the  moral  character  of  the  man 
himself,  and  of  all  his  acts  and  destinies  for  all  future  time. 
This,  if  true,  would  have  been  unjust  on  God's  part,  since  it 
involves  the  infliction  of  the  most  awful  punishment  upon  an 
act  in  itself  neither  good  nor  bad.  As  a  theory  it  is  absurd, 
since  it  evolves  all  morality  out  of  that  which  is  morally 
indifferent. 

Richard  Watson,  Vol.  II.,  p.  16,  well  says:  "In  Adam  that 
rectitude  of  principle  from  which  a  right  choice  and  right  acts 
flowed,  was  either  created  with  him,  or  flowed  from  his  own 
volitions.  If  the  latter  be  affirmed,  then  he  must  have  willed 
right  before  he  had  a  principle  of  rectitude,  which  is  absurd; 
if  the  former  then  his  creation  in  a  state  of  moral  rectitude, 
with  an  aptitude  and  disposition  to  good,  is  established." 

14.  Shotv  that  the  Pelagian  tlveory  can  not  he  based  upon  ex- 
nerience. 

This  whole  theory  is  built  upon  certain  d  priori  notions,  and 
is  contrary  to  universal  experience.  If  Adam  was  created  with- 
out positive  moral  character,  and  if  infants  are  so  born,  then  the 
conditions  of  free  agency  in  these  supposed  cases  must  be  dif- 
ferent from  the  conditions  of  free  agency  in  the  case  of  every 
adult  man  or  woman,  from  whose  consciousness  alone  we  can 
gather  the  facts  from  which  to  deduce  any  certain  knowledge 
on  the  subject.  Every  man  who  ever  thought  or  wrote  upon 
this  subject,  was  conscious  of  freedom  only  under  the  condi- 
tions of  an  already  formed  moral  character.      Kven  if  the  Pela- 


THE    IMAGE    AND    THE    LIKENESS.  305 

giaii  view  were  true,  we  never  could  be  assured  of  it,  since  we 
never  have  consciously  experienced  such  a  condition  of  indiffer- 
ency.  It  is  nothing  more  than  an  hypothesis,  contrived  to 
solve  a  difficulty;  a  difficulty  resulting  from  the  limits  of  our 
finite  powers  of  thought. — See  Sir  William  Hamilton's  "Dis- 
cussions," p.  587,  etc. 

15.  What  distinction  did  tJte  Fatliers  make  between  the  hucov 
and  the  6noioo6i<;  of  God  in  which  man  ivas  created? — Gen.  i.  26. 

By  the  huoov  or  "image"  of  God  the  Fathers  understood  the 
natural  constitutional  powers  of  man,  intellectual  and  moral,  as 
nason,  conscience,  and  free  will.  By  the  djuoiaodis  or  "likeness" 
of  God  they  understood  the  matured  and  developed  moral  per- 
fection of  human  nature  consequent  upon  man's  holy  exercise 
of  his  faculties. 

Neander,  "  Hist.  Christ.  Dogmas,"  p.  180,  says  that  this  was 
the  germ  of  the  subsequent  mediaeval  and  Roman  doctrine  as 
to  the  original  state  of  man. 

Bellarmin,  "De  Gratia,"  et  Lib.  Arbitrio  I.,  c.  6. — "We  are 
forced,  by  these  many  testimonies  of  the  Fathers,  to  conclude 
that  the  image  and  likeness  are  not  in  all  respects  the  same, 
but  that  the  image  pertains  to  the  nature  and  the  likeness  to 
the  virtues  (moral  perfections) ;  whence  it  follows  that  Adam 
by  sinning  lost  not  the  image  but  the  likeness  of  God." 

16.  What  does  the  Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent  teach  as 
to  the  state  in  which  Adam  was  created  ? 

See  below  the  doctrines  of  the  various  churches  at  the  end 
of  this  chapter. 

17.  What  is  the  Romish  doctrine  xoiih  respect  to  the  dona  natu- 
ralia,  and  the  dona  supernaturalia  ? 

1st.  They  hold  that  God  endowed  man  at  his  creation  with 
the  dona  natitralia,  that  is,  with  all  the  natural  constitutional 
powers  and  faculties  of  body  and  soul  without  sin,  in  perfect 
innoceney.     There  was  no  vice  or  defect  in  either  body  or  soul. 

2d.  God  duly  attempered  all  these  powers  to  one  another, 
placing  the  lower  in  due  subordination  to  the  higher.  This 
harmony  of  powers  was  called  Justicia — natural  righteousness. 

3d.  There  was,  however,  in  the  very  nature  of  things,  a 
natural  tendency  in  the  lower  appetites  and  passions  to  rebel 
against  the  authority  of  the  higher  powers  of  reason  and  con- 
science. This  tendency  is  not  sin  in  itself,  but  becomes  sin  only 
when  it  is  consented  to  by  the  will,  and  passes  into  voluntary 


306  CREATION  AND    ORIGINAL    STATE    OF  MAN. 

action.  This  is  concupiscence;  not  sin,  but  the  fuel  and  occasion 
of  sin. 

4th.  To  prevent  this  natural  tendency  to  disorder  from  the 
rebellion  of  the  lower  elements  of  the  human  constitution  against 
the  higher,  God  granted  man  the  additional  gift  of  the  dona  mo- 
pernaturalia,  or  gifts  extra  constitutional.  This  is  original  right- 
eousness, which  was  a  foreign  gift  superadded  to  his  constitu- 
tion, by  means  of  which  his  natural  powers  duly  attempered  are 
kept  in  due  subjection  and  order.  Some  of  their  theologians 
held  that  these  supernatural  gifts  were  bestowed  upon  man  im- 
mediately upon  his  creation,  at  the  same  time  with  his  natural 
powers.  The  more  prevalent  and  consistent  view,  however,  is 
that  it  was  given  subsequently  as  a  reward  for  the  proper  use 
of  his  natural  powers.    See  Moehler's  "  Symbolism,"  pp.  117,  118. 

5th.  Both  the  "justicia  "  and  the  "  dona  super natur alia  "  were 
accidental  or  superadded  properties  of  human  nature,  and  were 
lost  by  the  fall. 

18.  How  does  this  doctrine  modify  their  view  as  to  original  sin 
and  the  moral  character  of  that  concupiscence  ivhich  remains  in  the 
regenerate  ? 

They  hold  that  man  lost  at  the  fall  only  the  superadded 
gifts  of  "original  righteousness"  (dona  supematuralid),  while 
the  proper  nature  of  man  itself,  the  dona  naturalia,  comprising 
all  his  constitutional  faculties  of  reason,  conscience,  free-will 
(in  which  they  include  "moral  ability"),  remain  intact.  Thus 
they  make  the  effect  of  the  fall  upon  man's  moral  nature  purely 
negative.  The  Reformers  defined  it  "the  want  of  original  right- 
eousness, and  the  corruption  of  the  whole  nature." 

Hence,  also,  they  hold  that  concupiscence,  or  the  tendency 
to  rebellion  of  the  lower  against  the  higher  powers  remaining 
in  the  regenerate,  being  natural  and  incidental  to  the  very 
constitution  of  human  nature,  is  not  of  the  nature  of  sin.  See 
below. 

Authoritative  Public  Statements  of  the  Various  Churches. 

Romish  Doctrine. — "Cat.  Council  of  Trent,"  Pt.  2,  cli.  ii.,  Q.  19. — 
"  Lastly,  He  formed  man  from  the  slime  of  the  earth,  so  created  and 
qualified  in  body  as  to  be  immortal  and  impassable,  not,  however,  in 
virtue  of  the  strength  of  nature,  but  of  the  divine  gift.  But  as  regards 
the  soid  of  man,  he  created  it  in  his  own  image  and  likeness  ;  gifted  him 
with  free-will,  and  so  tempered  all  his  motions  and  appetites  that  they 
should  at  all  times  be  subject  to  the  control  of  the  reason.  He  then 
added  the  ailmirable  gift  of  original  righteousness ;  and  next  gave  him 
dominion  over  all  other  animals." — lb.  Pt.  2,  ch.  ii.,  Q.  42,  and  Pt.  4, 
ch.  xii.,  Q.  3. 


AUTHORITATIVE    PUBLIC    STATEMENTS.  307' 

BeMjArmtn. — "Gh'atia  Primi  LTominis,"  5. — "It  is  to  be  understood, 
in  the  first  place,  that  man  naturally  consists  of  flesh  and  spirit,  and  there- 
fore his  nature  partly  assimilates  with  the  beasts  and  partly  with  the 
angels ;  and  because  of  his  flesh  and  his  fellowship  with  the  beasts  he 
has  a  certain  propensity  to  corporeal  and  sensible  good,  to  which  he  is 
induced  through  the  senses  and  appetites  ;  and  because  of  his  spirit  and 
his  fellowship  with  the  angels  he  has  a  propensity  to  spiritual  and 
rational  good,  to  which  he  is  induced  by  his  reason  and  will.  But  from 
these  different  and  contrary  propensities  there  exists  in  one  and  the  same 
man  a  certain  contest,  and  from  these  contests  a  great  difficulty  of  acting, 
while  the  one  propensity  antagonizes  the  other.  It  is  to  be  understood 
in  the  second  place,  that  divine  providence  at  the  beginning  of  creation, 
that  it  might  administer  a  remedy  to  this  disease  or  languor  of  human 
nature  arising  from  the  condition  of  its  "matter,"  added  the  excellent 
gift  of  original  righteousness,  by  which  as  by  a  golden  bridle  the  inferior 
part  might  be  held  in  subjection  to  the  superior  part,  and  the  superior 
part  subject  to  God  ;  although  the  flesh  was  so  subject  to  the  spirit,  that 
it  could  not  be  moved  the  spirit  forbidding,  nor  rebel  against  the  spirit 
unless  the  spirit  rebel  against  God;  nevertheless  it  was  in  the  power  of 
the  spirit  to  rebel  or  not  to  rebel." 

For  the  statement  of  Bellarmin's  doctrine  as  to  the  present  moral 
condition  into  which  the  descendants  of  Adam  are  born,  see  below, 
Ch.  XIX.,  on  "Original  Sin." 

Lutheran  Doctrine. — "Formula  Concordioz"  (Hase),  p.  640.  [Orig- 
inal Sin]  ' '  is  the  privation  of  that  righteousness  concreated  in  human 
nature  in  Paradise,  or  of  that  image  of  God  in  which  man  was  in  the 
beginning  created  in  truth,  holiness,  and  righteousness." 

Reformed  Doctrine. — '■'■Canon.  Dordt,"  iii.  1. — "Man,  from  the 
beginning,  was  created  in  the  image  of  God,  adorned  in  his  mind,  with 
the  true  and  saving  knowledge  of  his  Creator,  and  of  spiritual  things, 
with  righteousness  in  his  will  and  heart,  and  purity  in  all  his  affections, 
and  thus  was  altogether  holy." 

"Con/.  Faith,"  ch.  iv.;  "£.  Cat.,"  Ques.  17;  "&  Cat.,"  Ques.  10. 

Remonstrant  Doctrine. — Limborch,  "Tlieol.  Christ."  ii.  24,  5. — 
' '  They  are  wont  to  locate  original  righteousness  in  illumination  and 
rectitude  of  the  mind,  in  holiness  and  righteousness  of  the  will,  in  har- 
mony of  the  senses  and  affections,  and  in  a  promptitude  for  good.  It  is, 
indeed,  most  evident  that  the  first  of  mankind  were,  in  their  primeval 
state,  of  a  far  more  perfect  condition  than  we  are  when  we  are  born. 
For  their  mind  was  not  like  a  blank  paper,  and  void  of  all  knowledge; 
but  had  been  endowed  by  God  with  actual  knowledge,  and  instructed 
in  the  wisdom  necessary  for  that  state ;  and  they  possessed  also  the 
capacity  for  acquiring  further  knowledge  by  reasoning,  experience,  and 
revelation.  .  .  Their  will  was  not  neutral  equally  indifferent  in  respect 
to  good  and  evil,  but  before  that  the  Law  was  imposed  upon  it  by  God, 
it  had  a  natural  rectitude,  so  that  it  could  neither  desire  nor  act  inor- 
dinately. For  where  there  is  no  law,  there  the  most  free  use  of  the  will 
is  clear  of  blame. — ii.  24,  10.  That  the  first  man  would  not  have  died 
if  he  had  not  sinned,  is  beyond  doubt,  for  death  was  the  penalty  of  sin. 
But  thence  the  immortality  [natural]  of  man  is  not  correctly  inferred. 
.  .  .  Nevertheless  God  would  have  preserved  this  mortality  in  per- 
petual immunity  of  actual  death,  if  man  had  not  sinned. " 

Soctnian  Doctrine. — F.  Socinus,  "Prcelectiones  Theol.,"  c.  3. — "We 
therefore  conclude  that  Adam,  even  before  he  had  transgressed  that  com- 
mand of  God,  was  not  truly  righteous,  since  he  was  neither  impeccable, 


308  CREATION  AND    ORIGINAL    STATE    OF  MAN. 

nor  had  lie  hitherto  been  subjected  to  any  occasion  of  sinning;  at  least 
it  is  not  possible  to  affirm  that  he  was  certainly  righteous,  since  it  in 
no  manner  appears  that  he  for  any  consideration  had  abstained  from 
sinning.  But  there  are  those  who  say  that  the  original  righteousness  of 
the  first  man  consisted  in  this,  that  he  possessed  a  reason  dominating 
over  his  appetite  and  senses  and  covering  them,  and  that  there  was 
no  variance  between  them.  But  they  say  this  without  reason,  since 
it  clearly  appears  from  the  sin  Adam  committed  that  his  appetite  and 
senses  dominated  over  his  reason,  neither  had  these  previously  agreed 
well  together." 

"Cat.  Racov.,"  p.  18. — "From  the  beginning  man  was  created  mortal, 
i.  e.,  such  an  one  as  not  only  might  consistently  with  his  nature  die,  but 
also  if  left  to  his  nature  could  not  but  die,  although  it  was  possible  that 
he  might  be  preserved  always  in  life  by  a  special  divine  blessing. " 


CHAPTER    XVII. 

COVENANT    OF   WORKS. 

1.  In  what  different  senses  is  the  term  covenant  used  in  Scripture? 

1st.  For  a  natural  ordinance. — Jer.  xxxiii.  20. 

2d.  For  an  unconditional  promise. — Gen.  ix.  11,  12. 

3d.  For  a  conditional  promise. — Is.  i.  19,  20. 

4th.  A  dispensation  or  mode  of  administration. — Heb.  viii.  6-9. 

For  the  usage  with  respect  to  the  Greek  term  diaB^mj,  usu- 
ally translated  in  our  version  testament  and  covenant — See  Chap- 
ter XXIL,  on  "  Covenant  of  Grace,"  Question  1. 

In  the  theological  phrases  "covenant  of  works,"  and  "cove- 
nant of  grace,"  this  term  is  used  in  the  third  sense  of  a  promise 
suspended  on  conditions. 

2.  What  are  the  several  elements  essential  to  a  covenant  ? 

1st.  Contracting  parties.  2d.  Conditions.  These  conditions 
in  a  covenant  between  equals  are  mutually  imposed  and  mutu- 
ally binding,  but  in  a  sovereign  constitution,  imposed  by  the 
Creator  upon  the  creature,  these  "conditions"  are  better  ex- 
pressed as  (1)  promises  on  the  part  of  the  Creator  suspended 
upon  (2)  conditions  to  be  fulfilled  by  the  creature.  And  (3)  an 
alternative  penalty  to  be  inflicted  in  case  the  condition  fails. 

3.  Slww  that  the  constitution  under  which  Adam  was  placed  by 
Ood  at  his  creation  may  be  rightly  called  a  covenant. 

The  inspired  record  of  God's  transactions  with  Adam  pre- 
sents definitely  all  the  essential  elements  of  a  covenant  as  co- 
existing in  that  constitution. 

1st.  The  "contracting  parties." — (1.)  God,  the  moral  Gov- 
ernor, by  necessity  of  nature  and  relation  demanding  perfect 
conformity  to  moral  law.  (2.)  Adam,  the  free  moral  agent,  by 
necessity  of  nature  and  relation  under  the  inalienable  obliga- 
tion of  moral  law. 


310  COVENANT   OF    WORKS. 

2d.  The  "promises,"  life  and  favor. — Matt.  xix.  16,  17;  Gal 
iii.  12. 

3d.  The  "conditions"  upon  which  the  promises  were  sus- 
pended, perfect  obedience,  in  this  instance  subjected  to  a  spe- 
cial test,  that  of  abstaining  from  the  fruit  of  the  "tree  of 
knowledge." 

4th.  The  "alternative  penalty."  "In  the  day  thou  eatest 
thereof  thou  shalt  surely  die." — Gen.  ii.  16,  17. 

This  constitution  is  called  a  covenant. — Hosea  vi.  7. 

4.  How  is  it  defined  in  our  standards  ? 

"Con.  Faith,"  Chap,  iv.,  Sec.  2;  Chap,  vii.,  Sec.  1  and  2; 
Chap,  xix.,  Sec.  1;  "L.  Cat.,"  Q.  20;  "S.  Cat,"  Q.  12. 

5.  Why  is  it  not  absurd  to  apply  the  term  "  Covenant "  to  a 
sovereign  constitution  imposed  by  tJie  Creator  upon  the  creature 
without  consulting  his  will  ? 

1st.  Although  it  was  a  sovereign  constitution  imposed  by 
God,  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  Adam  did  not  enter 
upon  it  voluntarily.  He  was  a  holy  being,  and  the  arrangement 
was  pre-eminently  to  his  advantage.  2d.  We  call  it  a  Covenant 
because  that  is  the  proper  word  to  express  a  conditional  prom- 
ise made  to  a  free  agent.  3d.  The  term  "Covenant"  is  constant- 
ly applied  in  Scripture  to  other  sovereign  constitutions  of  like 
character  which  the  Creator  has  imposed  upon  men.  If  God 
could  make  covenants  with  fallen  and  guilty  Noah,  Gen. 
ix.  11,  12,  and  with  Abraham,  Gen.  xvii.  1-21,  why  could  he 
not  make  a  covenant  with  unfallen  Adam. 

6.  By  what  titles  has  this  covenant  been  designated  and  why  ? 

1st.  It  has  been  called  the  Covenant  of  Nature,  because  it 
expresses  the  relations  which  man  in  his  natural  state  as  newly 
created  and  unfallen  sustained  to  the  Creator  and  Moral  Gov- 
ernor of  the  universe.  It  is  adjusted  to  the  natural  or  unfallen 
man,  just  as  the  Covenant  of  Grace  is  adjusted  to  unnatural  or 
fallen  man.  2d.  It  has  been  called  a  legal  covenant,  because 
its  "  condition "  is  perfect  conformity  to  the  law  of  absolute 
moral  perfection.  3d.  It  has  been  called  the  Covenant  of 
Works,  because  its  demands  terminate  upon  man's  own  being 
and  doing.  4th.  It  has  been  called  a  Covenant  of  Life,  because 
the  promise  attached  to  well-doing  was  life. 

It  was  also  essentially  a  gracious  covenant,  because  although 
every  creature  is,  as  such,  bound  to  serve  the  Creator  to  the  full 
extent  of  his  powers,  the  Creator  can  not  be  bound  as  a  mere 
matter  of  justice  to  grant  the  creature  fellowship  with  himself 


THE  r ARTIES  AND  PROMISE  OF  THE  COVENANT.       311 

or  to  raise  him  to  an  infallible  standard  of  moral  power,  or  to 
crown  him  with  eternal  and  inalienable  felicity. 

7.  Who  were  the  parties  to  this  covenant,  and  how  may  it  be 
proved  that  Adam  therein  represented  all  his  natural  descendants  ? 

The  "parties"  were  God  and  Adam,  and  in  him  represen- 
tatively all  his  natural  posterity.  That  he  did  thus  represent 
his  descendants  is  evident — 

1st.  From  the  parallel  which  is  drawn  in  Scripture  between 
Adam  in  his  relation  to  his  descendants,  and  Christ  in  his  rela- 
tion to  his  elect. — Rom.  v.  12-19,  and  1  Cor.  xv.  22,  47. 

2d.  From  the  matter  of  fact  that  the  very  penalty  denounced 
upon  Adam,  in  case  of  his  disobedience,  has  taken  effect  in  each 
individual  descendant. — Gen.  ii.  17 ;  iii.  17,  18. 

3d.  From  the  Biblical  declaration  that  sin,  death,  and  all 
penal  evil  came  into  the  world  through  Adam. — Rom.  v.  12;  1 
Cor.  xv.  22.    See  Chapter  XXL,  on  "  Imputation  of  Adam's  Sin." 

8.  What  was  tJie  promise  attached  to  the  Covenant  ? 

The  promise  was  "  life  " — 1st.  Because  it  is  necessarily  im- 

flied  in  the  penalty  of  "death,"  which  is  expressly  denounced. 
f  disobedience  is  linked  to  death,  obedience  is  linked  to  life. 
2d.  It  is  clearly  taught  in  other  passages  of  Scripture. — Lev. 
xviii.  5;  Neh.  ix.  29;  Matt.  xix.  16,  17;  Gal.  iii.  12;  Rom.  x.  5. 
This  life  was  not  a  mere  continuation  of  the  existence  with 
which  man  was  endowed  by  creation  as  a  fallible,  moral  agent, 
but  it  was  an  additional  gift  of  infallible,  moral  excellence,  and 
inalienable  blessedness,  conditioned  upon  obedience  during  a 
probationary  period.  1st.  This  is  evident  because  the  reward 
suspended  on  "  conditions  "  must  involve  something  more  than 
had  been  already  granted.  2d.  Because  man  was  as  created 
liable  to  sin,  and  there  could  be  no  permanent  and  secure  bliss 
nor  high  excellence  in  that  condition.  3d.  Because  the  grant- 
ing of  the  reward  necessarily  closes  the  probation,  supersedes 
the  conditions,  and  secures  inalienable  blessedness.  4th.  Be- 
cause the  angels  who  had  not  left  their  first  estate  had  been 
rewarded  with  such  a  life.  5th.  Because  the  life  promised  must 
correspond  to  the  death  threatened,  and  the  death  threatened 
involved  eternal  separation  from  God  and  irretrievable  destruc- 
tion. 6th.  Because  the  life  secured  to  us  by  the  "Second  Adam*1 
is  of  this  nature. 

9.  What  is  a  "probation"?  and  when  and  where  had  the  human 
race  its  probation  under  the  Covenant  of  Works  ? 

A  probation  is  a  trial.  The  word  is  variously  used  to  express 
the  state,  or  the  time,  or  the  act  of  trial.     The  time  of  probation 


312  LOVENANT   OF    WORKS. 

under  such  a  constitution  as  the  covenant  of  works  must  be  a 
definitely  limited  one,  because  it  is  self-evident  that  either  the 
infliction  of  the  penalty  or  the  granting  of  the  reward  would, 
ipso  facto,  close  the  probation  forever,  and  the  reward  could  not 
accrue  until  the  period  of  probation  was  completed. 

The  probation  of  the  human  race  took  place  once  for  all  in 
the  trial  of  Adam  in  the  garden  of  Eden.  That  trial  resulted 
in  loss,  and  since  then  the  conditions  of  the  covenant  being 
impossible,  and  its  penalty  having  been  incurred,  any  proba- 
tion is  of  course  impossible.  Men  are  now  by  nature  children 
of  wrath. 

10.  What  was  the  condition  of  that  covenant  ?  and  why  ivas  the 
command  not  to  eat  of  the  tree  of  knowledge  of  good  and  evil  selected 
as  a  test  ? 

Perfect  conformity  of  heart,  and  perfect  obedience  in  act 
to  the  whole  will  of  God  as  far  as  revealed. — Deut.  xxvii.  26; 
Gal.  iii.  10 ;  James  ii.  10.  The  command  to  abstain  from  eating 
the  forbidden  fruit  was  only  made  a  special  and  decisive  test 
of  that  general  obedience.  As  the  matter  forbidden  was  mor- 
ally indifferent  in  itself,  the  command  was  admirably  adapted 
to  be  a  clear  and  naked  test  of  submission  to  God's  absolute 
will  as  such.  The  forbidden  tree  was  doubtless  called  the  tree 
of  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil,  because  through  the  disobe- 
dient eating  of  it  mankind  came  to  the  thorough  experience 
of  the  value  of  goodness  and  of  the  infinite  evil  of  sin. 

The  obedience  required  by  the  law  as  a  rule  of  duty  is  of 
course  perpetual.  But  the  demand  of  the  law  for  obedience 
as  a  covenant  condition  of  life  must  be  limited  to  the  period 
of  probation.  The  term  "perpetual"  in  "Conf.  R,"  Ch.  xix.,  §  1, 
and  "L.  Cat.,"  Q.  20,  was  admitted  doubtless  by  inadvertence. 

11.  What  ivas  the  nature  of  the  death  threatened  in  case  of 
disobedience  ? 

This  word,  "dying  thou  shalt  die,"  in  this  connection  evi- 
dently includes  all  the  penal  consequences  of  sin.  These  are — 
1st,  death,  natural,  Eccle.  xii.  7;  2d,  death,  moral  and  spiritual, 
Matt.  viii.  22;  Eph.  ii.  1;  1  Tim.  v.  6;  Rev.  iii.  1;  3d,  death, 
eternal,  Rev.  xx.  6-14. 

The  instant  the  law  was  violated  its  penalty  began  to  ope- 
rate, although  on  account  of  the  intervention  of  the  dispensation 
of  grace  the  lull  effect  of  the  sentence  is  suspended  during  the 
present  life.  The  Spirit  of  God  was  withdrawn  the  instant  man 
tell,  and  he  at  once  became  spiritually  dead,  physically  mortal, 
and  under  sentence  of  death  eternal. 

This  appears — 1st.  From  the  nature  of  man  as  a  spiritual 


MEANING    OF   THE    WORD    "DEATH:'  313 

being.  "This  is  life  eternal  to  know  the  only  true  God,"  etc. — 
John  xvii.  3.  The  instant  the  soul  is  cut  off  from  God  it 
dies,  and  his  wrath  and  curse  is  incurred,  and  the  entire  per- 
son, body,  and  soul,  involved  in  an  endless  series  of  evil  condi- 
tions. 2d.  The  Scriptures  everywhere  declare  that  the  wages 
of  sin  is  death. — Rom.  vi.  23 ;  Ezek.  xviii.  4. 

The  nature  of  this  death  is  to  be  determined.  (1.)  By  the 
narrative  of  the  effects  produced  in  our  first  parents,  e.  g.,  shame 
of  nakedness,  fear,  alienation  from  God,  unbelief,  and  after  a 
time  dissolution  of  body,  etc.  (2.)  By  the  experience  of  its 
effects  in  their  descendants,  e.  g.,  corruption  of  nature,  mortality 
of  body,  miseries  in  this  life,  the  second  death. 

12.  What  does  C.  F.  Hudson  and  others  hold  to  be  the  penalty 
of  tlie  Covenant  of  Works  ? 

The  annihilationists,  of  whom  C.  F.  Hudson  is  one  of  the 
ablest,  hold  that  the  precise  thing  God  said  to  Adam  was 
"Thou,  thyself  thine  entire  person  art  dust,  and  to  dust  thou 
shalt  return."  They  quote  Num.  xxiii.  10;  Judges  xvi.  30,  etc. 
They  hold  that  death  means  precisely  and  only  cessation  of 
being.  They  say  Adam  could  have  had  no  other  idea  asso- 
ciated with  the  word.  Death  in  this  sense  had  pre-existed  in 
the  world  for  innumerable  ages  among  the  lower  orders  of 
creatures,  and  this  was  all  Adam  knew  on  the  subject. 

It  is  idle  for  us  to  speculate  as  to  what  the  original  Ian 
guage  God  spoke  to  Adam  was,  or  what  the  word  he  used, 
corresponding  to  our  word  death,  precisely  signified  and  sug- 
gested. Adam  probably  simply  understood  God  to  say  that 
if  he  sinned  he  should  be  utterly  and  irretrievably  cut  off  from 
the  divine  favor.  That  is  precisely  what  happened.  But  the 
facts  are  clear.  1st.  The  word  death  in  Scripture  is  used  to 
express  not  cessation  of  being  but  a  certain  godless  condition 
of  being. — Rev.  iii.  1;  Eph.  ii.  1-5,  and  v.  14;  1  Tim.  v.  6;  Rom. 
vi.  13;  xi.  15;  John  v.  24;  vi.  47.  2d.  It  will  be  shown  below, 
Chapters  XXXVII.  and  XL.,  that  the  Scriptures  do  not  allow 
the  notion  either  of  the  sleep  of  the  soul  during  the  inter- 
mediate state,  or  of  the  annihilation  of  the  wicked  after  the 
judgment. 

13.  What  is  meant  by  the  seal  of  a  covenant,  and  what  was  the. 
seal  of  the  Covenant  of  WorJcs  ? 

A  seal  of  a  covenant  is  an  outward  visible  sign,  appointed 
by  God  as  a  pledge  of  his  faithfulness,  and  as  an  earnest  of  the 
blessings  promised  in  the  covenant. 

Thus  the  rainbow  is  the  seal  of  the  covenant  made  with 
Noah. — Gen.  ix.  12,  13.     Circumcision  was  the  original  seal  of 


314  COVENANT   OF    WORKS. 

the  covenant  made  with  Abraham  (Gen.  xvii.  9-11 ;  Rom.  iv.  11), 
in  the  place  of  which  baptism  is  now  instituted. — Col.  ii.  11,  12; 
Gal.  iii.  26,  27.  The  tree  of  life  was  the  seal  of  the  covenant 
of  works,  because  it  was  the  outward  sign  and  seal  of  that  life 
which  was  promised  in  the  covenant,  and  from  which  man  was 
excluded  on  account  of  sin,  and  to  which  he  is  restored  through 
the  second  Adam  in  the  Paradise  regained. — Compare  Gen.  ii.  9 ; 
iii.  22,  24,  with  Rev.  ii.  7 ;  xxii.  2-14.  • 

14.  What  according  to  Witsius,  in  his  great  work  "on  tJie  Cov- 
enants" are  the  seals  or  sacraments  of  the  Covenant  of  Works  ? 

In  Vol.  I.,  Ch.  vi.,  Witsius  enumerates  four — 1st.  Paradise. 
2d.  The  tree  of  life.  3d.  The  tree  of  knowledge  of  good  and 
evil.     4th.  The  Sabbath. 

These  were  all  doubtless  symbolical  institutions  connected 
with  the  original  divine  dispensation  of  which  the  Covenant 
of  Works  was  the  foundation.  But  there  appears  to  be  no  rea- 
son for  designating  them  as  belonging  to  that  particular  class 
of  symbolical  institutions  called  sacraments  under  the  New 
Testament.  The  tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil  sealed 
death,  and  therefore  could  not  have  been  a  seal  of  the  Covenant 
of  Works  which  offered  life. 

15.  In  \ohat  sense  is  the  Covenant  of  Works  abrogated,  and  in 
what  sense  is  it  in  force  ? 

This  Covenant  having  been  broken  by  Adam,  not  one  of 
his  natural  descendants  is  ever  able  to  fulfil  its  conditions,  and 
Christ  having  fulfilled  all  of  its  conditions  in  behalf  of  all  his 
own  people,  salvation  is  offered  now  on  the  condition  of  faith. 
In  this  sense  the  Covenant  of  Works  having  been  fulfilled  by 
the  second  Adam  is  henceforth  abrogated -under  the  gospel. 

Nevertheless,  since  it  is  founded  upon  the  principles  of  im- 
mutable justice,  it  still  binds  all  men  who  have  not  fled  to  the 
refuge  offered  in  the  righteousness  of  Christ.  It  is  still  true 
that  "he  that  doeth  these  things  shall  live  by  them,"  and  "the 
soul  that  sinneth  it  shall  die."  This  law  in  this  sense  remains, 
and  in  consequence  of  the  unrighteousness  of  men  condemns 
them,  and  in  consequence  of  their  absolute  inability  to  fulfil 
it,  it  acts  as  a  schoolmaster  to  bring  them  to  Christ.  For  he 
having  fulfilled  alike  its  condition  wherein  Adam  failed,  and 
its  penalty  which  Adam  incurred,  he  has  become  the  end  of 
this  covenant  for  righteousness  to  every  one  that  believeth, 
who  in  him  is  regarded  and  treated  as  one  who  has  fulfilled 
the  covenant,  and  merited  its  promised  reward. 


CHAPTER    XVIII. 

THE  NATURE  OF  SIN  AND  THE  SIN  OF  ADAM. 

1.  What  are  the  only  tests  by  which  the  answer  to  the  question 
11  What  is  sin  ?  "  can  be  determined  ? 

1st.  The  word  of  God.  2d.  The  intuitive  judgments  of  men. 
The  tests  of  the  validity  of  these  intuitions  are  (a)  self-evi- 
dence, {b)  universality,  (c)  necessity.  The  intuitive  judgments 
of  men  are  immediately  passed  not  upon  abstract  notions  nor 
upon  general  propositions,  but  upon  concrete  and  individual 
instances.  General  maxims  are  generalized  by  the  understand- 
ing from  many  individual  intuitive  convictions,  and  are  true  or 
false  as  this  process  of  generalization  has  been  well  or  badly 
done.  The  vast  amount  of  confusion  and  error  which  prevails 
as  to  the  nature  of  sin,  and  as  to  what  comes  under  the  cate- 
gory of  sin,  is  due  to  crude  generalization  of  general  principles 
from  individual  intuitions,  and  the  indiscriminate  application 
of  the  maxim  thus  generated  beyond  the  range  to  which  they 
are  guaranteed  by  the  intuitions  themselves.  The  maxims 
that  all  sin  consists  in  voluntary  action,  and  that  ability  is 
the  measure  of  responsibility,  are  instances  of  this  abuse.  It 
is  as  absurd  to  attempt  to  make  the  bare  understanding  settle 
a  question  belonging  only  to  the  moral  sense  as  it  would  be  to 
make  the  nose  decide  a  question  of  sound. — See  M'Cosh,  "  In- 
tuitions of  the  Mind,"  Book  I.,  ch.  ii.,  §§  4  and  5,  and  Book  IV., 
ch.  ii.  §§  1-3. 

2.  What  must  a  true  definition  of  the  nature  of  sin  embrace  ? 

A  definition  of  sin  must — 1st.  Include  aU  that  either  the 
Word  of  God  or  an  enlightened  conscience  decides  to  be  sin. 
2d.  It  must  include  nothing  else.  Otherwise  in  either  case  it 
is  false. 

3.  State  the  definitions  of  sin  given  by  Turretin,  and  by  our 
Standards,  and  by  Vitrincja. 

Turretin,  Locus  9,  Quces.  1. — "  Inclinatio,  actio,  vel  omissio 
pugnans  cum  lege  Dei,  vel  carens  rectitudine  legiili  debita 
m  esse." 


316        THE   NATURE    OF  SIN   AND    THE    SIN  OF  ADAM. 

"  Conf.  Faith,"  Ch.  vi.,  §  6 ;  "  L.  Cat.,"  Q.  24 ;  "  S.  Cat,"  Q.  14 
"  Sin  is  any  want  of  conformity  unto,  or  transgression  of  the 
law  of  God." 

Campejus  Vitringa,  Prof.  Theo.  in  Franeker,  died  1722. — 
"  Forma  peceati  est  disconvenientia,  actus,  habitus,  ant  statua 
liominis  cum  divina  lege." 

This  last  excellent  definition  embraces  two  constitutent  prop- 
ositions.— 1st.  Sin  is  any  and  every  want  of  conformity  with 
the  moral  law  of  God,  whether  of  excess  or  defect,  whether  of 
omission  or  commission.  2d.  Sin  is  any  want  of  conformity  of 
the  moral  states  and  habits  as  well  of  the  actions  of  the  human 
soul  with  the  law  of  God? 

4  What  is  Laio  ?  And  what  is  tlue,  Law  of  God  ? 

The  word  law  is  used  in  a  great  many  and  in  very  different 
senses.  It  is  used  by  natural  philosophers  often  to  express — 
1st.  A  general  fact,  e.  q.,  the  general  fact  that  all  matter  at- 
tracts all  matter  inversely  as  the  square  of  the  distance.  2d.  An 
established  order  of  sequence  in  which  certain  events  occur,  as 
the  order  of  the  seasons,  and  any  established  order  of  nature. 
3d.  The  mode  of  acting  of  a  specific  force,  as  the  law  of  electri- 
cal induction,  etc.  4th.  A  spontaneous  order  of  development, 
as  the  internal  self-acting  law  of  the  growth  of  animals  and 
plants  from  the  seed. 

The  moral  law  of  God,  however,  is  not  an  internal,  self-reg- 
ulating principle  of  man's  moral  nature,  like  the  feigned  inner 
light  of  the  Quakers,  but  an  imperial  standard  of  moral  excel- 
lence imposed  upon  mankind  from  without  and  from  above 
them  by  the  supreme  authority  of  a  personal  moral  Governor 
over  personal  moral  subjects.  It  involves  (a)  a  certain  degree 
of  enlightenment  as  to  truth  and  duty,  (b)  a  rule  of  action  reg- 
ulating the  will  and  binding  the  conscience,  (c)  armed  with 
sanctions,  or  imperative  motives  constraining  to  obedience. 

5.  Prove  that  sin  is  any  luant  of  conformity  to  "  Law.'" 

1st.  Whenever  we  sin  conscience  condemns  us  for  not  com 
ing  up  to  a  standard  which  we  intuitively  recognize  as  morally 
obligatory  upon  us.  Conscience  implies  (a)  moral  accounta- 
bility, and  hence  subjection  to  a  moral  Governor,  and  (b)  a 
standard  to  which  we  ought  to  be  conformed.  The  conscience 
itself,  as  the  organ  of  God's  law,  contains  the  law  written  on  the 
heart. 

2d.  It  is  implied  in  all  the  language  used  by  the  Holy  Ghost 
in  Scripture  to  express  the  idea  of  sin  Dfc>  D'pl"  from  nttb>  to  devi- 


SIN  WANT  OF  CONFORMITY  TO  LAW  OF  GOD.  317 

ate  from  the  way.  xpn  to  miss  tJie  mark,  d/iaprdva  to  err,  to  miss 
the  mark,  itapa/3d6is  (Gal.  iii.  19),  a  going  aside  from,  a  trans- 
gresssion. 

3d.  It  is  explicitly  asserted  in  Scripture,  "  Every  one  that 
doeth  sin,  also  doeth  zrjv  dvojuiav,  and  sin  is  dvojuia." — 1  John  iii. 
4.     "  For  where  no  law  is  there  is  no  transgression." — Rom.  iv.  15. 

6.  Prove  that  sin  is  any  want  of  conformity  to  the  moral  Law 
of  God. 

As  above  shown  this  is  implied  in  the  action  of  conscience. 
It  testifies  to  a  law  imposed  upon  us  by  an  authority  external 
to  us,  the  supreme  authority  of  God.  In  the  absence  of  all 
supernatural  revelation  it  has  led  all  heathen  nations  to  the 
recognition  of  the  authority  of  God,  or  of  gods  exercising  gov- 
ernment, to  a  belief  in  rewards  and  punishments  administered 
by  God,  and  hence  to  expiatory  and  propitiatory  rites. 

It  is  also  asserted  by  David  that  sin  of  any  kind  is  disobe- 
dience and  dishonor  done  to  God. — See  fifty-first  Psalm. 

Hence  sin  is  not  a  mere  violation  of  the  law  of  our  own 
constitution,  nor  of  the  system  of  things,  but  an  offence  against 
a  personal  Lawgiver  and  moral  Governor,  who  vindicates  his 
law  with  penalties.  The  soul  that  sins  is  always  conscious  that 
his  sin  is  (a)  intrinsically  vile  and  polluting,  and  (b)  that  it 
justly  deserves  punishment  and  calls  down  the  righteous  wrath 
of  God.  Hence  sin  carries  with  it  two  inalienable  characters — 
(a)  ill  desert,  guilt,  reatus,  (b)  pollution,  macula. 

7.  Shoio  that  this  Law,  any  want  of  conformity  to  which  is  sin, 
demands  absolute  moral  perfection* 

This  is  necessarily  involved  in  the  very  essence  of  moral 
obligation.  Tlue  very  essence  of  right  is  that  it  ought  to  be.  The 
very  essence  of  wrong  is  that  it  ought  not  to  be.  If  any  thing 
be  indifferent  it  is  not  moral,  and  if  it  be  moral  it  is  a  matter 
of  obligation.  This  being  of  the  essence  of  right  it  is,  of  course, 
true  of  each  consistent  part  as  well  as  of  the  whole.  Any 
degree  short  of  full  conformity  with  the  highest  right  is  there- 
fore of  the  nature  of  sin.  "For  whosoever  shall  keep  the  whole 
law  and  yet  offend  in  one  point  is  guilty  of  all." — -James  ii.  10. 
The  old  maxim  is  true,  Omne  minus  bonum  habet  rationem  moli. 

It  evidently  follows  from  this  principle  that  the  Romish  doc- 
trine of  works  of  Supererogation  is  absurd  as  well  as  wicked, 
since  if  these  works  are  obligatory  they  are  not  supererogatory, 
and  if  they  are  not  obligatory  they  are  not  moral,  and  if  not 
moral  they  can  have  no  moral  value.  Hence  also  all  those 
Perfectionists  who  admit  that  men  are  not  now  able  to  keep 
*  Dr.  C.  Hodge's  Unpublished  Lectures. 


318        THE  NATURE    OF  SIN  AND    THE    SIN  OF  ADAM. 

perfectly  the  law  of  absolute  moral  perfection,  while  they  main 
tain  that  Christians  may  in  this  life  live  without  sin,  obviously 
use  incorrect  and  misleading  language. 

8.  Prove  that  any  want  of  conformity  with  this  Law  in  tht 
states  and  permanent  habit  of  soul,  as  well  as  in  its  acts,  is  sin. 

1st.  This  is  proved  by  the  common  judgments  of  all  men. 
All  judge  that  the  moral  state  of  the  heart  determines  the  moral 
character  of  the  actions,  and  that  the  moral  character  of  the 
actions  discloses  the  moral  state  of  the  heart,  and  that  a  man 
whose  acts  are  habitually  profane,  or  malignant,  or  impure,  is 
himself  in  the  permanent  state  of  his  heart  profane,  or  malig- 
nant, or  impure. 

2d.  The  same  is  proved  by  the  common  religious  experience 
of  all  Christians.  This  experience  always  involves  conviction 
of  sin,  and  conviction  of  sin  involves  as  its  most  uniform  and 
prominent  element  not  merely  a  conviction  that  our  actions 
fail  to  come  up  to  the  proper  standard  of  excellence,  but  a 
sense  that  in  the  depths  of  our  nature,  below  and  beyond  the 
reach  of  volition,  we  are  spiritually  dead  and  polluted,  and  im- 
potent and  insensible  to  divine  things,  and  worthy  of  condem- 
nation therefore.  Every  Christian  has  been  brought  with  Paul 
to  cry  out,  "0  wretched  man  that  I  am:  who  shall  deliver  me 
from  the  body  of  this  death." — Rom.  vii.  24.  This  finds  expres- 
sion, and  this  principle  for  which  we  are  contending  finds  proof 
in  all  the  prayers,  supplications,  confessions,  and  in  all  the 
hymns  and  devotional  literature  of  Christians  of  all  ages  and 
denominations. 

3d.  The  Scriptures  explicitly  call  the  permanent  states  of 
the  soul  "sin"  when  they  are  not  conformed  to  the  law  of  God. 
Sin  and  its  lusts  are  said  to  reign  in  the  mortal  body;  the  mem 
bers  are  the  instruments  of  sin ;  the  unregenerate  are  the  ser- 
vants of  sin. — Rom.  vi.  12-17.  The  disposition  or  permanent 
"tendency"  to  sin  is  called  "flesh"  as  opposed  to  "spirit," 
Gal.  v.  17;  also  "lust,"  James  i.  14,  15;  "old  Adam,"  and  "body 
of  sin,"  "ignorance,"  "blindness  of  heart,"  "alienation  from 
the  life  of  God,"  and  "a  condition  of  being  past  feeling,"  Eph. 
iv.  18,  19. 

9.  Shoio  that  tJie  very  first  spontaneous  motions  of  concupiscence 
are  sin  ? 

1st.  The  heart  of  the  Christian  often  for  the  moment  spon- 
taneously lusts  for  evil  when  the  conscience  promptly  condemns 
and  the  will  forbids  and  restrains  and  diverts  the  attention. 
Although  the  man  does  not  consent  to  the  sin  that  is  present 
in  him,  nevertheless  the  Christian  feels  that  such  movements  of 


ORIGIN   OF   SIN.  319 

concupiscence  are  unholy,  and  worthy  of  condemnation,  and  he 
not  only  resists  thern  but  condemns  and  loathes  himself  because 
of  them,  and  seeks  to  be  purged  from  them  at  once  by  the 
atoning  blood,  and  the  sanctifying  spirit  of  Jesus. 

2d.  Concupiscence  is  called  "  sin  "  in  Scripture.  "  I  had  not 
known  sin,  but  by  the  law,  for  I  had  not  known  eninv/xiav  (con- 
cupiscence) except  the  law  had  said  thou  shalt  not  hmOv^ui." 
Also  tcc  7ta0rJM<xra  r&v  dnapri(Sv,  "the  motions  of  sin,"  and  "the 
law  in  the  members,"  and  "'sin  that  dwelleth  in  me,"  that 
worketh  without  "my  consent,"  which  "works  all  manner  of 
concupiscence,"  etc. — Rom.  vii.  5-24. 

10.  What  is  the  first  great  mystery  connected  with  the  origin  of 
sin  ? 

How  or  why  was  the  existence  of  sin  tolerated  in  the  crea- 
tion of  a  God  at  once  eternal,  self-existent,  and  infinite  in  wis- 
dom, power,  holiness,  and  benevolence  ? 

All  the  attempted  solutions  of  this  enigma  which  have  been 
entertained  in  our  day  have  been  summed  up  by  Prof.  Haven 
of  Chicago  as  follows : 

"Either  God  can  not  prevent  sin,  i.  e.,  either  (a)  in  any 
system,  (&)  in  a  moral  system  involving  free  agency. 

"  Or  for  some  reason  God  does  not  choose  to  prevent  sin, 
t.  e.,  either  because  (a)  its  existence  is  of  itself  desirable,  (b)  or 
though  not  in  itself  desirable  it  is  the  necessary  means  of  the 
greatest  good,  or  (c)  though  not  in  itself  tending  to  good  it 
may  be  overruled  to  that  result,  or  (d)  because,  in  general  terms, 
its  permission  will  involve  less  evil  than  its  absolute  prevention. 

It  is  obvious  (a)  that  God  has  permitted  sin,  and  (b)  hence 
it  was  right  for  him  to  do  so.  But  why  it  was  right  must  ever 
remain  a  mystery  demanding  submission  and  defying  solution. 

11.  What  ivas  the  Manichaian  doctrine  as  to  the  origin  of  sin? 

They  held  the  opinion  that  sin  had  its  ground  in  some  eter 
nal,  self-existent  principle  independent  of  God,  either  matter  or 
self-existent  devil.  This  doctrine  is  inconsistent  (a)  with  the 
independence,  infinitude,  and  sovereignty  of  God;  (b)  with  the 
nature  of  sin  as  essentially  the  revolt  of  a  created  free-will  from 
God.  Sin  is  an  element  of  perverted  moral  agency.  To  con- 
sider it  an  attribute  of  matter  is  to  deny  it.  All  the  Christian 
fathers  united  in  opposing  Manichasism  and  in  maintaining 
that  sin  is  the  product  of  the  free-will  of  man  alone. 

12.  State  the  doctrine  of  St.  Augustine  with  respect  to  tlie  priva- 
tive nature  of  sin. 

St.  Augustine  held  —  1st.  That  God  is  the  creator  of  all 


320         THE   NATURE    OF  SIN  AND    THE   SIN  OF  ADAM. 

entities  and  the  absolutely  sovereign  Governor  of  all  moral 
agents  and  of  all  their  actions;  and  2d.  That  nevertheless  God 
is  in  no  sense  either  the  author  or  the  cause  of  sin.  In  order 
to  reconcile  these  he  held,  3d.  That  sin  is  not  an  entity,  but  is  in 
its  essence  simply  a  defect.  His  dictum,  which  hence  has  passed 
into  general  currency  with  all  classes  of  theologians,  was  Nihil 
est  malum  nisi  privatio  boni.  They  have  properly  distinguished 
between  "negation"  and  "privation."  Negation  is  the  absence 
of  that  which  does  not  belong  to  the  nature  of  the  subject, 
as  sight  to  a  stone.  Privation  is  the  absence  of  that  which 
belonging  to  the  nature  of  the  subject  is  necessary  to  its  perfec- 
tion, as  sight  to  a  man. 

Sin  therefore  is  privative  because  it  originates  in  the  absence 
of  those  moral  qualities  which  ought  to  be  present  in  the  states 
and  actions  of  a  free,  responsible,  moral  agent. 

It  is  to  be  remembered,  however,  that  the  inherent  depravity 
which  "  comes  from  a  defective  or  privative  cause "  instantly 
assumes  a  positive  form,  from  the  essentially  active  nature  of 
the  human  soul.  In  a  passive  condition  of  being,  a  defect  might 
remain  purely  negative.  But  in  a  ceaselessly  active  being,  and 
one  acting  under  ceaseless  moral  obligations,  a  moral  defect  must 
instantly  become  a  positive  vice.  Not  to  love  God  is  to  hate 
him.  Not  to  be  in  all  things  conformed  to  his  will  is  to  rebel 
against  him,  and  to  break  his  law  at  all  points. — See  Edwards, 
"  Original  Sin,"  pt.  4.  sec.  2. 

13.  What  is  the  Pelagian  doctrine  as  to  the  nature  of  sin? 

The  Pelagian  view  of  sin,  which  has  been  rejected  by  all 
branches  of  the  Christian  Church,  is — 1st.  That  law  can  com- 
mand only  volitions.  2d.  That  states  of  the  soul  can  be  com- 
manded only  in  so  far  as  they  are  the  direct  effect  of  previous 
volitions.  3d.  Hence  that  sin  consists  simply  in  acts  of  volition. 
4th.  That  whatever  a  man  has  not  plenary  ability  to  do  he  is 
under  no  obligation  to  do.  5th.  That  there  is  no  such  thing, 
therefore,  as  innate  depravity.  6th.  That  since  a  volition  to  be 
moral  or  the  subject  of  approbation  or  of  condemnation,  must 
be  a  pure  self-decision  of  the  will,  it  follows  that  sin  is  beyond 
the  absolute  control  of  God. 

14.  In  ivhat  sense  is  the  dictum  that  "aU  sin  is  voluntary"  true, 
and  in  ivhat  sense  false? 

It  all  turns  upon  the  sense  of  the  phrase  "Voluntary."  If 
it  be  in  the  Pelagian  sense  restricted  to  "  acts  of  volition ; "  then 
the  dictum  that  "all  sin  is  voluntary"  is  false.  If,  however,  it 
is  used  so  as  to  include  the  spontaneous  dispositions,  tenden- 
cies, and  affections  which  constitute  the  permanent  character 


SIN   OF  ADAM.  321 

of  the  soul,  and  which  prompt  to  and  decide  the  nature  of  the 
volitions,  then  all  sin  is  voluntary,  because  all  sin  has  its  ground 
and  spring  in  these  spontaneous  tendencies  and  dispositions, 
i.  e.,  in  the  permanent  moral  states  of  the  soul. 

15.  State  tlie  'peculiarities  of  the  Romish  position  upon  this  sub- 
ject, and  also  that  of  the  Arminian  Perfectionists. 

The  Soman  Church  agrees  with  all  Protestants  in  holding 
that  all  the  habits  and  permanent  dispositions  as  well  as  the 
actions  of  the  soul  which  are  not  conformed  to  the  law  of  God 
are  sinful.  But  it  is  a  prominent  characteristic  of  their  doc- 
trine that  they  hold  that  moral  condition  of  soul  which  remains 
in  the  regenerate  as  the  consequence  of  original  sin,  and  the 
fomes  or  fuel  of  actual  sin,  is  not  properly  of  the  nature  of  sin. 
They  maintain  that  the  first  spontaneous  movement  of  this 
concupiscence  is  not  sin  in  itself,  and  not  to  be  treated  as  such 
— but  that  it  becomes  the  cause  of  sin  as  soon  as  its  solicita- 
tions are  entertained  and  translated  into  action  by  the  will. — 
"  Cat.  of  Council  of  Trent,"  Pt.  II.,  ch.  ii.,  Q.  42. 

The  Arminians  avail  themselves  of  the  same  positions  when 
defending  their  doctrine  of  Christian  Perfection.  Wesley  (in 
"Meth.  Doc.  Tracts,"  pp.  294-312)  distinguishes  between  "sin 
properly  so  called,  i.  e.,  voluntary  transgression  of  known  law, 
•aid  sin  improperly  so  called,  i.  e.,  involuntary  transgression  of 
law,  known  or  unknown,"  and  declares,  "  I  believe  there  is  no 
such  perfection  in  this  life  as  excludes  these  involuntary  trans- 
gressions, which  I  apprehend  to  be  naturally  consequent  upon 
the  ignorance  and  mistakes  inseparable  from  mortality." 

The  Sin  of  Adam. 

16.  What  is  the  second  great  mystery  connected  toith  tlie  origin 
of  sin  ? 

How  could  sin  originate  in  the  will  of  a  creature  created 
with  a  positively  holy  disposition  ? 

The  difficulty  is  to  reconcile  understandingly  the  fact  that 
sin  did  so  originate — 

1st.  With  the  known  constitution  of  the  human  will.  If 
the  volitions  are  as  the  prevalent  affections  and  desires,  and 
if  the  affections  and  desires  excited  by  outward  occasions  are 
good  or  evil,  according  to  the  permanent  moral  state  of  the 
will,  how  could  a  sinful  volition  originate  in  a  holy  will  ?  or 
how  could  the  permanent  state  of  his  soul  become  spontane- 
ously unholy? 

2d.  With  universal  experience.  As  it  is  impossible  that  a 
sinful  desire  or  volition  should  originate  in  the  holy  will  of 
21 


322        THE  NATURE    OF   SIN  AND    THE   SIN  OF  ADAM. 

God,  or  in  the  holy  will  of  saints  and  angels,  or  that  a  truly 
holy  affection  or  volition  should,  originate  in  the  depraved 
wills  of  fallen  men  without  supernatural  regeneration  (Luke 
vi.  43-45),  how  could  a  sinful  volition  originate  in  the  holy 
will  of  Adam? 

That  Adam  was  created  with  a  holy  yet  fallible  will,  and 
that  he  did  fall,  are  facts  established  by  divine  testimony.  We 
must  believe  them,  although  we  can  not  rationally  explain 
them.  This  is  for  us  impossible — 1st.  Because  there  remains  au 
inscrutable  element  in  the  human  will,  adopt  whichever  theory 
of  it  we  may. 

2d.  Because  all  our  reasoning  must  be  based  upon  con- 
sciousness, and  no  other  man  ever  had  in  his  consciousness 
the  experience  of  Adam.  The  origin  of  our  sinful  volitions  is 
plain  enough.  But  we  lack  some  of  the  data  necessary  to  ex- 
plain his  case. 

In  the  way  of  approximation,  however,  we  may  observe — 
1st.  It  is  unsound  to  reason  from  the  independent  will  of  the 
infinite  God  to  the  dependent  will  of  the  creature. 

2d.  The  infallibility  of  saints  and  angels  is  not  inherent, 
but  is  a  superinduced  confirming  grace  of  God.  They  are  not 
in  a  state  of  probation.  Adam  was — his  will  was  free,  but 
not  confirmed. 

3d.  The  depraved  will  of  man  can  not  originate  holy  affec- 
tions and  volitions,  because  the  presence  of  a  positively  holy 
principle  is  necessary  to  constitute  them  holy.  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  there  were  already  in  the  holy  will  of  Adam  many 

Erinciples  morally  indifferent,  in  themselves  neither  good  nor 
ad,  and  becoming  sinful  only  when,  in  default  of  the  control 
of  reason  and  conscience,  they  prompt  to  their  indulgence 
in  ways  forbidden  by  God;  e.  g.,  admiration  and  appetite  for 
the  fruit,  and  desire  for  knowledge.  The  sin  commenced  the 
moment  that,  under  the  powerful  persuasion  of  Satan,  these 
two  motives  were  dwelt  upon  in  spite  of  the  prohibition,  and 
thus  allowed  to  become  so  prevalent  in  the  soul  as  temporarily 
to  neutralize  reverence  for  God's  authority,  and  fear  of  his 
threatening. 

4th.  Adam,  although  endowed  with  a  holy  disposition,  was 
inexperienced  in  the  assaults  of  temptation. 

5th.  He  was  assailed  through  the  morally  indifferent  princi- 
ples of  his  nature  by  a  vastly  superior  intelligence  and  char- 
acter, to  whom,  in  the  highest  sense,  the  origin  of  all  sin  must 
be  referred. 

17.  What  ajypears  from  tine  history  of  tJie  Fall  to  Jiave  been  if* 
precise  nature  of  the  first  sin  of  Adam  ? 


THE   EFFECT   OF  ADAM'S   SIN   ON  HIMSELF.  32» 

It  appears  from  the  record  (Gen.  iii.  1-6)  that  the  initial 
influences  inducing  our  first  parents,  in  their  first  transgression, 
were  in  themselves  considered  morally  indifferent.  These  were 
—1st.  Natural  appetite  for  the  attractive  fruit.  2d.  Natural  de- 
sire for  knowledge.  3d.  The  persuasive  power  of  Satan  upon 
Eve,  including  the  known  influence  of  a  superior  mind  and 
will.  4th.  The  persuasive  power  of  both  Satan  and  Eve  upon 
Adam.  Their  dreadful  sin  appears  to  have  been  essentially — 
1st.  Unbelief,  they  virtually  made  God  a  liar.  2d.  Deliberate 
disobedience,  they  set  up  their  will  as  a  law  in  place  of  his. 

18.  What  relation  did  God  sustain  to  Adams  sin? 

Concerning  the  relation  sustained  by  God  to  the  sin  of  Adam 
all  we  know  is — 1st.  God  created  Adam  holy,  with  all  natural 
powers  necessary  for  accountable  agency.  2d.  He  rightfully 
withheld  from  him,  during  his  probation,  any  higher  supernat- 
ural influence  necessary  to  render  him  infallible.  3d.  He  neither 
caused  nor  approved  Adam's  sin.  4th.  He  sovereignly  decreed 
to  permit  him  to  sin,  thus  determining  that  he  should  sin  as 
he  did. 

19.  What  teas  the  effect  of  Adam's  sin  upon  himself? 

1st.  In  the  natural  relation  which  Adam  sustained  to  God 
as  the  subject  of  his  moral  government,  his  sin  must  have  in- 
stantly had  the  effect  of  (1)  displeasing  and  alienating  God, 
and  (2)  of  depraving  his  own  soul. 

2d.  In  the  covenant  relation  which  Adam  sustained  to  God 
the  penalty  of  the  covenant  of  works  was  incurred,  i.  e.,  death, 
including,  (1)  mortality  of  body,  (2)  corruption  of  soul,  (3)  sen- 
tence of  eternal  death. 

20.  In  what  sense  did  he  become  totally  depraved,  and  how  could 
total  depravity  result  from  one  sin  ? 

By  the  affirmation  that  total  depravity  was  the  immediate 
result  of  Adam's  first  sin,  it  is  not  meant  that  he  became  as 
bad  as  he  could  be,  or  even  as  corrupt  as  the  best  of  his  unre- 
generate  descendants;  but  it  is  meant — 1st.  His  apostasy  from 
God  was  complete.  God  demands  perfect  obedience.  Adam 
was  now  a  rebel  in  arms. 

2d.  That  the  favor  and  communion  of  God,  the  sole  condition 
of  his  spiritual  life,  was  withdrawn. 

3d.  A  schism  was  introduced  into  the  soul  itself.  The  pain- 
ful reproaches  of  conscience  were  excited,  and  could  never 
be  allayed  without  an  atonement.  This  led  to  fear  of  God, 
distrust,  prevarication,  and,  by  necessary  consequence,  to  in- 
numerable other  sins. 


324:        THE    NATURE    OF  SIN  AND    THE    SIN  OF  ADAM. 

4th.  Thus  the  whole  nature  became  depraved.  The  will 
being  at  war  with  the  conscience,  the  understanding  became 
darkened;  the  conscience,  in  consequence  of  constant  outrage 
and  neglect,  became  seared;  the  appetites  of  the  body  inordi 
nate,  and  its  members  instruments  of  unrighteousness. 

5th.  There  remained  in  man's  nature  no  recuperative  princi- 
ple ;  he  must  go  on  from  worse  to  worse,  unless  God  interpose. 

Thus  the  soul  of  man  being  essentially  active,  although 
one  sin  did  not  establish  a  confirmed  habit,  it  did  alienate  God 
and  work  confusion  in  the  soul,  and  thus  lead  to  an  endless 
course  of  sin. 

The  Consequences  of  Adam's  sin  to  his  posterity  are — 1st.  The 
judicial  charging  of  the  legal  responsibility  of  that  sin  upon 
all  at  their  creation  whom  he  represented  in  the  Covenant  of 
Works.  2d.  The  consequent  birth  of  each  of  his  descendants 
in  a  state  of  exclusion  from  the  life-giving  communion  of  the 
divine  Spirit.  3d.  The  consequent  loss  of  original  righteous- 
ness, and  the  inherent  and  prevailing  tendency  to  sin  which  is 
the  invariable  moral  condition  of  each  of  his  descendants  from 
birth.  4th.  The  absolute  moral  inability  of  men  to  change  their 
natures  or  to  fulfil  their  obligations. 

For  reasons  which  will  appear  subsequently,  the  subjects 
connected  with  man's  natural  moral  corruption  and  impotency, 
are  discussed  before  the  subject  of  Imputation,  or  the  reason 
and  method  of  the  passing  over  of  the  consequences  of  Adah's 
sin  from  him  to  his  descendants. 


CHAPTER    XIX. 

ORIGINAL  SIT<l.—[Peccatum  Habituate.) 

1.  How  is  original  sin  to  be  defined  ? 

See  "Confession  of  Faith,"  Chapter  vi. ;  "L.  Cat.,"  Questions 
25,  26;  "S.  Cat,"  Question  18. 

The  phrase,  original  sin,  is  used  sometimes  to  include  the 
judicial  imputation  of  the  guilt  of  Adam's  sin,  as  well  as  the 
hereditary  moral  corruption,  common  to  all  his  descendants, 
which  is  one  of  the  consequences  of  that  imputation.  More 
strictly,  however,  the  phrase  original  sin  designates  only  the 
hereditary  moral  corruption  common  to  all  men  from  birth. 

In  the  definition  of  this  doctrine  we  dent — 

1st.  That  this  corruption  is  in  any  sense  physical,  that  it 
inheres  in  the  essence  of  the  soul,  or  in  any  of  its  natural  fac- 
ulties as  such. 

2d.  That  it  consists  primarily  in  the  mere  supremacy  of  the 
sensual  part  of  our  nature.  It  is  a  depraved  habit  or  bias  of 
will. 

3d.  That  it  consists  solely  in  the  absence  of  holy  dispositions, 
because,  from  the  inherent  activity  of  the  soul,  sin  exhibits 
itself  from  the  beginning  in  the  way  of  a  positive  proneness  to 
evil. 

On  the  other  hand,  we  affirm — 

1st.  That  original  sin  is  purely  moral,  being  the  innate 
proneness  of  the  will  to  evil. 

2d.  That  having  its  seat  in  the  will  averse  to  the  holy  law 
of  God,  it  biasses  the  understanding,  and  thus  deceives  the 
conscience,  leads  to  erroneous  moral  judgments,  to  blindness  of 
mind,  to  deficient  and  perverted  sensibility  in  relation  to  moral 
objects,  to  the  inordinate  action  of  the  sensuous  nature,  and  thus 
to  corruption  of  the  entire  soul. 

3d.  Thus  it  presents  two  aspects:  (1.)  The  loss  of  the  original 
righteous  habit  of  will.  (2.)  The  presence  of  a  positively  un- 
righteous habit. 


320  ORIGINAL    SIN. 

4th.  Yet  from  the  fact  that  this  innate  depravity  does 
embrace  a  positive  disposition  to  evil,  it  does  not  follow  that  a 
positive  evil  quality  has  been  infused  into  the  soul.  Because, 
from  the  essentially  active  nature  of  the  soul,  and  from  the 
essential  nature  of  virtue,  as  that  which  obliges  the  will,  it 
evidently  follows  that  moral  indifference  is  impossible ;  and  so 
that  depravity,  which  President  Edwards  says  "  comes  from  a 
defective  or  privative  cause,"  instantly  assumes  a  positive  form. 
Not  to  love  God  is  to  rebel  against  him,  not  to  obey  virtue  is 
to  trample  it  under  foot.  Self-love  soon  brings  us  to  fear,  then 
to  hate  the  vindicator  of  righteousness. — Edwards  on  "  Original 
Sin,"  Part  IV.,  sec.  2. 

2.  Why  is  this  sin  called  original  ? 

Not  because  it  belongs  to  the  original  constitution  of  our 
nature  as  it  came  forth  from  the  hand  of  God,  but  because,  1st, 
it  is  derived  by  ordinary  generation  from  Adam,  the  original 
root  of  the  human  race ;  and  2d,  it  is  the  inward  root  or  origin 
of  all  the  actual  sins  that  defile  our  lives. 

This  sin  is  also  technically  styled  Peccatum  Habituate,  or  the 
sin  which  consists  in  a  morally  corrupt  habit  or  state  of  soul, 
in  distinction  from  imputed  sin  and  actual  sin. 

3.  How  may  it  be  proved  that  tlve  doctrine  of  original  sin  does 
not  involve  the  corruption  of  the  substance  of  tine  soul  ? 

It  is  the  universal  judgment  of  men  that  there  are  in  the 
soul,  besides  its  essence  and  its  natural  faculties,  certain  habits, 
innate  or  acquired,  which  qualify  the  action  of  those  faculties, 
and  constitute  the  character  of  the  man.  Those  habits,  or  inhe- 
rent dispositions  which  determine  the  affections  and  desires  of 
the  will,  govern  a  man's  actions,  and,  when  good,  are  the  sub- 
jects of  moral  approbation,  and,  when  evil,  the  subjects  of  moral 
disapprobation  on  the  part  of  all  men.  An  innate  moral  habit 
of  soul,  e.  gr.,  original  sin,  is  no  more  a  physical  corruption  than 
any  acquired  habit,  intellectual  or  moral,  is  a  physical  change. 

Besides  this,  the  Scriptures  distinguish  between  the  sin  and 
the  agent  in  a  way  which  proves  that  the  sinful  habit  is  not 
something  consubstantial  with  the  sinner,  Rom.  vii.  17;  "sin 
that  dwelleth  in  me,"  Heb.  xii.  1,  etc. 

4.  How  can  it  be  shown  that  original  sin  does  not  consist  in  dis- 
ease, or  merely  in  tlie  supremacy  of  the  sensuous  part  of  our  nature  ? 

While  it  is  true  that  many  sins  have  their  occasions  in  the 
inordinate  appetites  of  the  body,  yet  it  is  evident  the  original 
or  root  of  sin  can  not  be  in  them — 

1st.  From  the  very  nature  of  sin  it  must  have  its  seat  in  the 


CORRUPTION   OF    THE    WHOLE    NATURE.  327 

moral  state  of  the  voluntary  principle.  Disease,  or  any  form  of 
physical  disorder,  is  not  voluntary,  and  therefore  not  an  element 
of  moral  responsibility.  It  is,  moreover,  the  obligation  of  the 
will  to  regulate  the  lower  sensuous  nature,  and  sin  must  orig- 
inate in  the  failure  of  those  moral  affections  which  would  have 
been  supreme  if  they  still  continued  to  reign  in  the  will. 

2d.  From  the  fact  that  the  most  heinous  sins  are  destitute  of 
any  sensuous  element,  e.  g.,  pride,  anger,  malice,  and  aversion 
from  God. 

5.  Hon  can  it  be  proved  that  this  innate  disposition  or  habit  of 
soul,  which  leads  to  sinful  action,  is  itself  sin  ? 

1st.  This  innate  habit  of  soul  is  a  state  of  the  will,  and  it  is 
an  ultimate  principle  that  all  the  states  as  well  as  acts  of  the 
will  related  to  the  law  of  conscience  are  moral,  i.  e.,  either  virtuous 
or  vicious. — See  above,  Chapter  XV.,  Questions  9  and  10. 

2d.  These  permanent  habits  or  states  of  the  will  constitute 
the  moral  character  of  the  agent,  which  all  men  regard  as  the 
proper  subject  of  praise  or  blame. 

3d.  This  inherent  disposition  to  sinful  action  is  called  "sin" 
in  Scripture.— Rom.  vi.  12,  14,  17;  vii.  5-17.  It  is  called  "flesh" 
as  opposed  to  "spiritual,"  Gal.  v.  17,  24;  also  "lust,"  James  i 
14,  15 ;  and  i:  old  Adam  "  and  "  body  of  sin,"  Rom.  vi.  6 ;  also 
"  ignorance,"  "  blindness  of  heart,"  "  alienation  from  the  life  of 
God,"  and  a  condition  of  "  being  past  feeling,"  Eph.  iv.  18,  19. 

6.  How  can  it  be  shown  that  original  sin  does  not  consist  simply 
in  the  want  of  original  righteousness  ? 

1st.  It  follows  from  the  inherent  activity  of  the  human  soul, 
and  from  the  inherently  obliging  power  of  moral  right,  that  the 
absence  of  right  dispositions  immediately  leads  to  the  formation 
of  positively  sinful  dispositions.  Not  to  love  God  is  to  hate  him, 
not  to  obey  him  is  to  disobey.  Disobedience  leads  to  fear,  to 
falsehood,  and  to  every  form  of  sin. — See  above,  Question  1. 

2d.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  innate  depravity  exhibits  its  pos- 
itive character  by  giving  birth  to  sins,  involving  positive  vi- 
ciousness  in  the  earliest  stages  of  accountable  agency,  as  pride, 
malice,  etc. 

3d.  The  Scriptures  assign  it  a  positive  character,  when  they 
apply  to  it  such  terms  as  "flesh,"  "concupiscence,"  "old  man," 
"law  in  the  members,"  " body  of  sin,"  " body  of  death,"  " sin 
taking  occasion,"  "  deceived  me,"  and  "  wrought  all  manner  of 
concupiscence." — Rom.  vii. 

7.  How  may  it  be  shown  that  it  affects  the  entire  man  ? 
Original  sin  has  its  seat  in  the  will,  and  primarily  consists 


328  ORIGINAL    SIN 

in  that  proneness  to  unlawful  dispositions  and  affections  which 
is  the  innate  habit  of  the  human  soul.  But  the  several  facul- 
ties of  the  human  soul  are  not  separate  agents.  The  one  soul 
acts  in  each  function  as  an  indivisible  agent,  its  several  facul- 
ties or  powers  after  their  kind  mutually  qualifying  one  another. 
When  the  soul  is  engaged  in  understanding  an  object,  or  an 
aspect  of  any  object,  e.  g.,  mathematics,  with  which  its  affec- 
tions are  not  concerned,  then  its  action  has  no  moral  element. 
But  when  it  is  engaged  in  understanding  an  object  with  respect 
to  which  its  depraved  affections  are  perversely  interested,  ita 
action  must  be  biassed.  The  consequence,  therefore,  of  the  sinful 
bias  of  the  will  in  its  controlling  influence  over  the  exercises  of 
the  soul,  in  all  its  functions,  will  be — 

1st.  The  understanding,  biassed  by  the  perverted  affections, 
acting  concurrently  with  the  moral  sense  in  forming  moral 
judgments,  will  lead  to  erroneous  judgments,  to  a  deceiving 
conscience,  and  to  general  "  blindness  of  mind "  as  to  moral 
subjects. 

2d.  The  emotions  and  sensibilities  which  accompany  the 
judgments  of  conscience  in  approving  the  good  and  in  con- 
demning the  wrong,  by  repeated  outrage  and  neglect,  will  be 
rendered  less  lively,  and  thus  lead  to  a  seared  conscience,  and 
general  moral  insensibility. 

3d.  In  a  continued  course  of  sinful  action  the  memory  will 
become  defiled  with  its  stores  of  corrupt  experiences,  from  which 
the  imagination  also  must  draw  its  materials. 

4th.  The  body  in  its  turn  will  be  corrupted.  (1.)  Its  natural 
appetites  will  become  inordinate  in  the  absence  of  proper  con- 
trol. (2.)  Its  active  powers  will  be  used  as  "instruments  of 
unrighteousness  unto  sin." 

5th.  The  Scriptures  teach — (1.)  That  the  understanding  of 
the  "natural  man"  is  depraved  as  well  as  his  affections. — 
1  Cor.  ii.  14;  2  Cor.  iv.  4;  Eph.  iv.  18;  Col.  i.  21.  (2.)  That 
regeneration  involves  illumination  as  well  as  renewal  of  the 
heart.— Acts  xxvi.  18;  Eph.  i.  18;  v.  8;  1  Pet.  ii.  9.  _  (3.)  That 
truth  addressed  to  the  understanding  is  the  great  instrument 
of  the  Spirit  in  regeneration  and  sanctification. — John  xvii.  17; 
James  i.  18. 

8.  What  is  meant  by  the  affirmation  that  man  by  nature  is 
totally  depraved  ? 

By  this  orthodox  phrase  it  is  not  to  be  understood,  1st,  that 
the  depraved  man  has  not  a  conscience.  The  virtuousness  of 
an  agent  does  not  consist  in  his  having  a  conscience,  but  in 
the  conformity  of  the  dispositions  and  affections  of  his  will  to 
the  law  of  which  conscience  is  the  organ.     Even  the  devils 


TOTAL  DETAAVITY,  ITS  NATURE  AND  EVIDENCE.      329 

and  lost  souls  retain  their  sense  of  right  and  wrong,  and  those 
vindicatory  emotions  with  which  conscience  is  armed. 

Or,  2d,  that  miregenerate  men,  possessing  a  natural  con- 
science, do  not  often  admire  virtuous  character  and  actions  in 
others. 

Or,  3d,  that  they  are  incapable  of  disinterested  affections  and 
actions  in  their  various  relations  with  their  fellow-men. 

Or,  4th,  that  any  man  is  as  thoroughly  depraved  as  it  is  pos- 
sible for  him  to  become,  or  that  each  man  has  a  disposition 
inclined  to  every  form  of  sin. 

But  it  is  meant — 1st.  That  virtue  consisting  in  the  con- 
formity of  the  dispositions  of  the  will  with  the  law  of  God,  and 
the  very  soul  of  virtue  consisting  in  the  allegiance  of  the  soul  to 
God,  every  man  by  nature  is  totally  alienated  in  his  governing 
disposition  from  God,  and  consequently  his  every  act,  whether 
morally  indifferent,  or  conformed  to  subordinate  principles  of 
right,  is  vitiated  by  the  condition  of  the  agent  as  a  rebel. 

2d.  That  this  state  of  will  leads  to  a  schism  in  the  soul,  and 
to  the  moral  perversion  of  all  the  faculties  of  soul  and  body 
(see  preceding  question.) 

3d.  The  tendency  of  this  condition  is  to  further  corruption 
in  endless  progression  in  every  department  of  our  nature,  and 
this  deterioration  would,  in  every  case,  be  incalculably  more 
rapid  than  it  is,  if  it  were  not  for  the  supernatural  restraints  of 
the  Holy  Ghost. 

4th.  There  remains  no  recuperative  element  in  the  soul. 
Man  can  only  and  forever  become  worse  without  a  miraculous 
recreation. 

9.  What  proof  of  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  may  be  derived 
from  the  history  of  the  Fall  ? 

God  created  man  in  his  own  image,  and  pronounced  him  as 
a  moral  agent  to  be  very  good.  He  threatened  him  with  death 
in  the  very  day  that  he  should  eat  the  forbidden  fruit,  and  only 
in  the  sense  of  spiritual  death  was  that  threat  literally  fulfilled. 
The  spiritual  life  of  man  depends  upon  communion  with  God; 
but  God  drove  him  at  once  forth  in  anger  from  his  presence. 
Consequently  the  present  spiritual  state  of  man  is  declared  to  be 
44  death,"  the  very  penalty  threatened. — Eph.  ii.  1 ;  1  John  iii.,  14. 

10.  What  is  the  account  ivhich  the  Scriptures  give  of  human 
wit nre,  and  how  can  the  existence  of  an  innate  hereditary  depravity 
be  thence  inferred  ? 

The  Scriptures  represent  all  men  as  totally  alienated  from 
God,  and  morally  depraved  in  their  understandings,  hearts, 
wills,  consciences,  bodies,  and  actions. — Rom.  iii.  10-23;  viii.  7; 


330  ORIGINAL    SIN. 

Job  xiv.  4;  xv.  14;  Gen.  vi.  5;  viii.  21;  Matt.  xv.  19;  Jer.  xvii. 
9 ;  Is.  i.  5,  6.  This  depravity  of  man  is  declared  to  be,  1st,  of 
the  act,  2d,  of  the  heart,  3d,  from  birth  and  by  nature,  4th,  of 
all  men  without  exception. — Ps.  li.  5 ;  John  iii.  6 ;  Eph.  ii.  3 ; 
Ps.  lviii.  3. 

11.  State  the  evidence  for  the  truth  of  this  doctrine  afforded  by 
Rom.  v.  12-21. 

Paul  here  proves  that  the  guilt, — legal  obligation  to  suffer 
the  penalty, — of  Adam's  sin  is  imputed  to  us,  by  the  unquestion- 
able fact  that  the  penalty  of  the  law  which  Adam  broke  has 
been  inflicted  upon  all.  But  that  penalty  was  all  penal  evil, 
death  physical,  spiritual,  eternal.  Original  sin,  therefore,  to- 
gether with  natural  death,  is  in  this  passage  assumed  as  an 
undeniable  fact,  upon  which  the  apostle  constructs  his  argu- 
ment for  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin. 

12.  How  is  tl\e  truth  of  this  doctrine  established  by  the  fact  of 
the  general  prevalence  of  sin  ? 

All  men,  under  all  circumstances,  in  every  age  of  the  world, 
and  under  whatever  educational  influences  they  may  be  brought 
up,  begin  to  sin  uniformly  as  soon  as  they  enter  upon  moral 
agency.  A  universal  effect  must  have  a  universal  cause.  Just 
as  we  judge  that  a  man  is  by  nature  an  intelligence,  because 
the  actions  of  all  men  involve  an  element  of  intelligence,  so  we 
as  certainly  judge  that  man  is  by  nature  depraved,  because  all 
men  act  sinfully. 

13.  If  Adam  sinned,  though  free  from  any  corruption  of  nature, 
how  does  tJie  fact  that  his  posterity  sin  prove  that  their  nature  is 
corrupt  ? 

The  fact  that  Adam  sinned  proves  that  a  moral  agent  may 
be  at  once  sinless  and  fallible,  and  that  such  a  being,  left  to 
himself,  may  sin,  but  with  respect  to  his  posterity  the  question 
is,  what  is  the  universal  and  uniform  cause  that  every  indi- 
vidual always  certainly  begins  to  sin  as  soon  as  he  begins  to 
act  as  a  moral  agent  ?  The  question  in  the  one  case  is,  How 
could  such  an  one  sin  ?  but  in  the  other,  Why  do  all  certainly  sin 
from  the  beginning  ? 

14.  By  what  other  objections  do  Pelagians  and  otlvers  attempt 
to  avoid  the  force  of  the  argument  from  tJie  universality  of  sin  ? 

1st.  Those  who  maintain  that  the  liberty  of  indifference  is 
essential  to  responsible  agency,  and  that  volitions  are  not  de- 
termined by  the  precedent  moral  state  of  the  mind,  attribute 


DOCTRINE    PROVED.  331 

all  sinful  actions  to  the  fact  that  the  will  of  man  is  uncondi- 
tioned, and  insist  that  his  acting  as  he  acts  is  an  ultimate  fact. 

In  answer,  we  acknowledge  that  a  man  always  wills  as  he 
pleases,  but  the  question  is,  Why  does  he  always  certainly  phase 
to  ivitt  lorong  ?  An  indifferent  cause  can  not  account  for  a  uni- 
form fact.  The  doctrine  of  original  sin  merely  assigns  the  de- 
praved character  of  the  will  itself  as  the  uniform  cause  of  the 
uniform  fact. 

2d.  Others  attempt  to  explain  the  facts  by  the  universal 
influence  of  sinful  example. 

We  answer:  (1.)  Children  uniformly  manifest  depraved 
dispositions  at  too  early  a  period  to  admit  of  that  sin  being 
rationally  attributed  to  the  influence  of  example.  (2.)  Children 
manifest  depraved  dispositions  who  have  been  brought  up  from 
birth  in  contact  with  such  influences  only  as  would  incline  them 
to  holiness. 

3d.  Others,  again,  attempt  to  explain  the  facts  by  referring 
to  the  natural  order  in  the  development  of  our  faculties,  e.  a., 
first  the  animal,  then  the  intellectual,  then  the  moral :  thus  the 
lower,  by  anticipating,  subverts  the  higher. 

For  answer,  see  above,  Question  4.  Besides,  while  this  is 
an  imperfect  explanation,  it  is  yet  a  virtual  admission  of  the 
fact  of  innate  hereditary  depravity.  Such  an  order  of  devel- 
opment, leading  to  such  uniform  consequences,  is  itself  a  total 
corruption  of  nature. 

15.  What  argument  for  tlie  doctrine  of  original  sin  may  be 
derived  from  the  universality  of  death? 

The  penalty  of  the  law  was  death,  including  death  spiritual, 
physical,  and  moral.  Physical  death  is  universal ;  eternal  death, 
temporarily  suspended  for  Christ's  sake,  is  denounced  upon  all 
the  impenitent.  As  one  part  of  the  penalty  has  taken  effect, 
even  upon  infants,  who  have  never  been  guilty  of  actual  trans- 
gression, we  must  believe  the  other  part  to  have  taken  effect 
likewise.  Brutes,  who  also  suffer  and  die,  are  not  moral  agents, 
nor  were  they  ever  embraced  in  a  covenant  of  life,  and  there- 
fore their  case,  although  it  has  its  own  peculiar  difficulties,  is 
not  analogous  to  that  of  man.  Geology  affirms  that  brutes 
suffered  and  died  in  successive  generations  before  the  creation 
and  apostasy  of  man.  This  is  at  present  one  of  the  xmsolved 
questions  of  God's  providence. — See  Hugh  Miller's  "Testimo- 
nies of  the  Rocks." 

16.  How  may  it  be  proved  by  what  the  Scriptures  say  concert* 
ing  regeneration? 

The  Scriptures  declare — 


332  ORIGINAL    SIN. 

1st.  That  regeneration  is  a  radical  change  of  the  moral  char- 
acter, wrought  by  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  exercise  of  supernat- 
ural power.  It  is  called  "  a  new  creation  " ;  the  regenerated 
are  called  "  God's  workmanship,  created  unto  good  works,"  etc. 
Ezek.  xxxvi.  26;  Eph.  i.  19;  ii.  5,  10;  iv.  24;  1  Pet  i.  23;  James 
i.  18. 

2d.  Eegeneration  is  declared  to  be  necessary  absolutely  and 
universally. — John  iii.  3 ;  2  Cor.  v.  17. 

17.  How  may  it  be  proved  from  ivJiat  the  Scriptures  say  of 
redemption  ? 

The  Scriptures  assert  of  redemption — 

1st.  As  to  its  nature,  that  the  design  and  effect  of  Christ's 
sacrifice  is  to  deliver,  by  means  of  an  atonement,  all  his  people 
from  the  power  as  well  as  from  the  guilt  of  sin. — Eph.  v.  25-27; 
Titus  ii.  14;  Heb.  ix.  12-14;  xiii.  12. 

2cL  As  to  its  necessity,  that  it  was  absolutely  necessary  for 
all — for  infants  who  never  have  committed  actual  sin,  as  well 
as  for  adults. — Acts  iv.  12;  Rom.  iii.  25,  26;  Gal.  ii.  21  and  iii. 
21,  22;  Matt.  xix.  14;  Rev.  i.  5;  v.  9. 

Some  have  essayed  to  answer,  that  Christ  only  redeemed 
infants  from  the  "  liability  to  sin."  But  redemption  being  an 
atonement  by  blood,  the  "just  for  the  unjust,"  if  infants  be  not 
sinners  they  can  not  be  redeemed.  A  sinless  liability  to  sin  is 
only  a  misfortune,  and  can  admit  of  no  redemption. — See  Dr. 
Taylor's  "Concio  ad  Clerum"  (New  Haven,  1828),  pp.  24,  25; 
also  Harvey's  Review  of  the  same  (Hartford,  1829),  p.  19. 

18.  State  the  evidence  afforded  by  infant  baptism. 

Baptism,  as  circumcision,  is  an  outward  rite,  signifying  the 
inward  grace  of  spiritual  regeneration  and  purification. — Mark 
i.  4;  John  iii.  5;  Titus  iii.  5;  Dent.  x.  16;  Rom.  ii.  28,  29.  Both 
of  these  rites  were  designed  to  be  applied  to  infants.  The  ap- 
plication of  the  sign  would  be  both  senseless  and  profane  if 
infants  did  not  need,  and  were  not  capable  of  the  thing  signified. 

19.  If  God  is  the  author  of  our  nature,  and  our  nature  is  sinful, 
how  can  ive  avoid  the  conclusion  that  God  is  the  autlwr  of  sin  ? 

That  conclusion  would  be  unavoidable  if,  1st,  sin  was  an 
essential  element  of  our  nature,  or  if,  2d,  it  inhered  in  that  na- 
ture originally,  as  it  came  from  God. 

But  we  know,  1st,  that  sin  originated  in  the  free  act  of  man, 
created  holy,  yet  fallible ;  2d,  that  entire  corruption  of  nature 
sprang  from  that  sin;  and,  3d,  that  in  consequence  of  sin  God 
has  justly  w  it!  id  raw  n  the  conservatire  influences  of  his  Holy 


SIN  AGAINST    THE    HOLY   GHOST.  333 

Spirit,  and  left  men  to  the  natural  and  penal  consequences  of 
their  sin. — See  Calvin's  "Instit.,"  Lib.  II.,  Chap.  I.,  sees.  6  and  11. 

20.  How  can  this  doctrine  be  reconciled  with  tJie  liberty  of  man 
and  his  responsibility  for  his  acts? 

1st.  Consciousness  affirms  that  a  man  is  always  responsible 
for  his  free  actions,  and  that  his  act  is  always  free  when  he 
wills  as,  upon  the  whole,  he  prefers  to  will.  2d.  Original  sin 
consists  in  corrupt  dispositions,  and,  therefore,  in  every  sin  a 
man  acts  freely,  because  he  acts  precisely  as  he  is  disposed  to 
act.  3d.  Consciousness  affirms  that  inability  is  not  inconsistent 
with  responsibility.  The  inherent  habit  or  disposition  of  the 
will  determines  his  action,  but  no  man,  by  a  mere  choice  or 
volition,  can  change  his  disposition. — See  Chap.  XVIII.,  Ques- 
tions 4  and  25. 

21.  How  is  this  corruption  of  nature  propagated? 
See  below,  under  Chapter  XXL 

22.  In  ichat  sense  may  sin  be  the  punishment  of  sin  ? 

1st.  In  the  way  of  natural  consequence  (1)  in  the  interior 
working  of  the  soul  itself,  in  the  derangement  of  its  powers; 
(2)  in  the  entangled  relations  of  the  sinner  with  God  and  his 
fellowmen. 

2d.  In  the  way  of  judicial  abandonment.  Because  of  sin 
God  withdraws  his  Holy  Spirit,  and  further  sin  is  the  conse- 
quence.— Rom.  i.  24-28. 

23.  What  do  the  Scriptures  teach  concerning  tlve  sin  against  the 
Holy  Ghost? 

See  Matt.  xii.  31,  32;  Mark  iii.  29,  30;  Heb.  vi.  4-6;  x.  26,  27; 
1  John  v.  16. 

These  passages  appear  to  teach  that  this  sin  consists  in  the 
malicious  rejection  of  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  of  the  testimony 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  against  evidence  and  conviction.  It  is  called 
the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost  because  he  is  immediately  pres- 
ent in  the  heart  of  the  sinner,  and  his  testimony  and  influence 
is  directly  rejected  and  contemptuously  resisted.  It  is  unpar- 
donable, not  because  its  guilt  transcends  the  merit  of  Christ, 
or  the  state  of  the  sinner  transcends  the  renewing  power  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  but  because  it  consists  in  the  final  rejection  of 
these,  and  because  at  this  limit  God  has  sovereignly  staid  hia 
grace. 

24.  What  are  the  main  positions  involved  in  the  Pelagian  doo 
trine  of  original  sin  ? 


334  ORIGINAL    SIN. 

The  system  called  Pelagian  originated  with  Pelagius  in  his 
controversies  with  St.  Augustine  in  the  beginning  of  the  fifth 
century,  and  was  afterwards  completely  developed  by  the  disci- 
ples of  Faustus  and  Lselius  Socinus  in  the  sixteenth  century, 
is  embodied  in  the  Racovian  Catechism,  and  prevails  among 
the  English  and  American  Unitarians  of  the  eighteenth  and 
nineteenth  centuries. 

It  embraces  the  following  points  :  1st.  Adam's  sin  affected 
himself  alone.  2d.  Infants  are  born  in  the  same  moral  state 
in  which  Adam  was  created.  3d.  Every  man  possesses  plenary 
Ability  to  sin  or  to  repent  and  obey  whenever  he  will.  4th.  Re- 
sponsibility is  in  exact  proportion  to  ability ;  and  God's  demands 
ire  adjusted  to  the  various  capacities  (moral  as  well  as  consti- 
tutional) and  circumstances  of  men. 

25.  What  are  tJie  main  positions  involved  in  the  Semipelagian 
doctrine  ? 

According  to  the  critical  estimate  of  Wiggers  in  his  "  Hist. 
Present,  of  Augustinianism  and  Pelagianism,"  Pelagianism  re- 
gards man  as  morally  and  spiritually  well.  Semipelagianism 
regards  him  as  sick.     Augustinianism  regards  him  as  dead. 

The  current  positions  of  Semipelagianism  during  the  middle 
ages  were — 1st.  Denial  of  the  imputation  of  the  guilt  of  Adam's 
sin.  2d.  Acknowledgment  of  a  morbid  condition  of  man's  moral 
nature  from  birth  by  inheritance  from  Adam.  3d.  Which  mor- 
bid condition  is  not  itself  sin  but  the  certain  cause  of  sin.  4th. 
It  involves  the  moral  powers  of  the  soul  to  such  an  extent  that 
no  man  can  fulfil  the  requirements  either  of  the  law  or  of  the 
gospel  without  divine  assistance.  Man,  however,  has  the  power 
to  begin  to  act  aright,  when  God  seeing  his  effort,  and  knowing 
that  otherwise  it  would  be  fruitless,  gives  him  the  gracious  help 
he  needs. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Arminians,  and  the  "  Synergism "  of 
Melanchthon  amount  practically  to  very  much  the  same  thing 
with  the  statements  just  made.  The  main  difference  is  that 
the  Semipelagians  held  that  man  can  and  must  begin  the  work 
of  repentance  and  obedience  when  God  instantly  co-operates 
with  him.  While  the  Arminians  and  Synergists  held  that  man 
is  so  far  depraved  that  he  needs  grace  to  dispose  and  enable 
him  to  begin  as  well  as  to  continue  and  to  succeed  in  the  work, 
but  that  all  men  as  a  matter  of  fact  have  the  same  common 
grace  acting  upon  them,  which  grace  effects  nothing  until  the 
man  voluntarily  co-operates  with  it,  when  it  becomes  effica- 
cious through  that  co-operation. 

The  Greek  Church,  which  occupies  the  same  general  posi- 
tion as  to  original  sin  and  grace,  holds — 1st.  Original  sm  is 


VARIOUS    VIEWS.  335 

not  voluntary  and  therefore  not  true  sin.  2d.  The  influence 
of  Adam  extends  only  to  the  sensuous,  and  not  to  the  rational 
nor  moral  nature  of  his  descendants,  and  hence  it  extends  to 
their  will  only  through  the  sensuous  nature.  3d.  Infants  are 
guiltless  because  they  possess  only  a  physical  propagated  na- 
ture. 4th.  The  human  will  takes  the  initiative  in  regeneration 
but  needs  divine  assistance.  This  is  Semipelagianism.  While 
the  corresponding  Arminian  position  is  that  grace  takes  the  in- 
itiative in  regeneration  but  depends  for  its  effect  upon  human 
co-operation. 

26.  What  is  tJie  New  Haven  view  on  this  subject  ? 

Dr.  Nathaniel  W.  Taylor,  of  New  Haven,  the  prince  of 
American  new  school  theology,  taught  that  sin  consists  solely 
in  acts  of  the  will.  That  "  original  sin  is  man's  own  act,  con- 
sisting in  a  free  choice  of  some  object  rather  than  God  as  his 
chief  good."  He  includes  in  this  definition  the  permanent  gov- 
erning preference  of  the  will,  which  determines  special  and 
transient  acts  of  choice;  which  preference  is  formed  by  each 
human  being  as  soon  as  he  becomes  a  moral  agent,  and  is  uni- 
formly a  preference  of  some  lesser  good  in  place  of  God.  He 
maintains  also  that  the  nature  of  man,  in  the  condition  in 
which  it  comes  into  being,  in  consequence  of  Adam's  fall,  is 
the  occasion,  not  the  cause,  of  all  men  invariably  making  a 
wrong  moral  preference,  and  consequently  original  sin  is  Ly 
nature  in  the  sense  that  the  will  enacts  it  freely  though  uni- 
formly as  occasioned  by  nature,  yet  that  the  nature  itself,  or 
its  inherent  tendency  to  occasion  sin,  is  not  itself  sin,  or  ill- 
deserving. — See  "  Concio  ad  Clerum,"  New  Haven,  1828,  and 
Harvey's  Review  thereof. 

27.  What  is  the  Romish  doctrine  as  to  the  change  effected  in  tlie 
moral  nature  of  man  by  the  fall? 

See  below  the  public  statements  of  the  various  churches. 

28.  What  distinction  do  the  Romanists  malce  between  mortal  and 
venial  sins  ? 

By  mortal  sins  they  mean  those  that  turn  away  the  soul 
from  God,  and  forfeit  baptismal  grace.  By  venial  sins  they 
mean  those  which  only  impede  the  course  of  the  soul  to  God 
See  below  Bellarmin,  quoted  under  "Authoritative  Statement 
of  Church  Doctrine,"  etc. 

The  objections  are — 1st.  This  distinction  is  never  made  in 
the  Scriptures.  2d.  Except  for  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  every 
sin  is  mortal. — James  ii.  10;  Gal.  iii.  10. 


336  ORIGINAL    SIN. 

The  Authoritative  Statements  of  Church  Doctrine. 

Romish  Doctrine. — "Council  of  Trent"  Sess.  v.  Can.  2. — "If  any 
one  shall  assert  that  the  apostasy  of  Adam  injured  himself  alone  and  not 
his  posterity;  and  that  he  lost  the  sanctity  and  righteousness  received 
from  God,  for  himself  alone  and  not  also  for  us,  his  posterity;  or  that 
the  stain  which  results  from  the  sin  of  disobedience,  death,  and  physical 
evils  only  have  overflowed  over  the  whole  human  race,  and  not  also  sin 
which  is  the  disease  of  the  soul  —  anathema  sit."  lb.,  Sess.  vi.  Cap.  1. 
"The  Holy  Synod  declares  that  in  order  properly  to  understand  the 
doctrine  of  justification  it  is  necessary  that  every  one  should  acknowl- 
edge and  confess  that  since  all  men  lost  their  innocency  in  the  apostasy 
of  Adam,  so  that  ....  they  are  servants  of  sin,  under  the  power 
of  the  devil  and  of  death  .  .  .  nevertheless  in  them  free  will  is  by  no 
means  extinct,  although  it  is  weakened  as  to  its  strength  and  biassed." 
lb.,  Sess.  vi.  Can.  5. — "If  any  one  shall  say  that  the  free-will  of  man  has 

been  lost  and  extinguished  in  consequence  of  the  sin  of  Adam 

anathema  sit."  Can.  7. — "If  any  one  shall  say  that  all  works  performed 
by  a  man  anterior  to  justification  (regeneration),  from  whatever  reason 
performed,  are  true  sins  which  merit  the  hatred  of  God,  or  that  the  more 
vehemently  one  may  strive  to  dispose  himself  to  grace,  only  the  more 
grievously  he  sins — anathema  sit. " 

Bellarmin,  "Amiss.  Gratia,"  iii.  1. — "The  penalty  which  properly 
stands  over  against  the  first  sin,  is  the  loss  of  original  righteousness  and 
of  the  supernatural  gifts  with  which  God  had  furnished  our  nature.  "Be 
Gratia  primi  horn.,"  1. — "They  (the  Catholics)  teach  that,  through  the 
sin  of  Adam  the  whole  man  was  truly  deteriorated,  but  that  he  has  not 
lost  free  will  nor  any  other  of  the  dona  naluralia,  but  only  the  dona  super- 
naturalia."  lb.,  c.  5. — "Wherefore  the  state  of  man  since  the  fall  of 
Adam  does  not  differ  more  from  his  state  in  puris  naturalibus  [i.  e. ,  as 
created  and  antecedent  to  his  endowment  with  the  dona  supernaturalia, 
see  Statement  of  Romish  Doctrine  end  of  Ch.  XVI.)  than  a  man  robbed 
of  his  clothes  differs  from  one  originally  naked,  neither  is  human  nature 
any  worse  (if  you  subtract  original  guilt)  nor  does  it  labor  under  greater 
ignorance  and  infirmity,  than  it  was  and  did  as  created  in  puris  natural- 
ibus. Whence  it  follows  that  corruption  of  nature  does  not  result  from 
the  loss  of  any  gift,  nor  from  the  accession  of  any  evil  quality,  but  only 
from  the  loss  of  the  supernatural  gift  because  of  the  sin  of  Adam." 

"Amiss.  Gh'a.,"  v.  5. — "The  question  between  us  and  our  adversaries 
is  not  whether  human  nature  has  been  grievously  depraved  through  the 
sin  of  Adam.  For  that  we  freely  confess.  Neither  is  the  question 
whether  this  depravity  pertains  in  any  manner  to  original  sin,  so  that 
it  may  be  spoken  of  as  the  material  of  that  sin.  But  the  whole  contro- 
versy is  whether  that  corruption  of  nature  and  especially  concupiscence 
pei'  se  and  of  its  own  nature,  as  it  is  found  in  the  baptized  and  justified, 
is  properly  original  sin.     This  the  Catholics  deny." 

Lutheran  Doctrine. — liFormula  Concordia3,"  p.  640. — "(It  is  to  be 
believed) — 1st.  That  this  hereditary  evil  is  fault  or  guilt  (ill-desert)  by 
which  on  account  of  the  disobedience  of  Adam  and  Eve,  we  all  are  made 
subject  to  the  wrath  of  God,  and  are  by  nature  children  of  wrath,  as  the 
Apostle  testified  (Rom.  v.  12,  sqq.,  Eph.  ii.  3).  2d.  That  there  is  through 
all  a  total  want,  defect,  and  privation  of  that  original  righteousness  con- 
created  in  Paradise,  or  of  that  image  of  God  in  which  man  in  the  be- 
ginning was  created  in  truth,  holiness,  and  righteousness  ;  and  there 
is  at  the  same  lime  that  impotency  and  incapacity,  that  weakness  and 


AUTHORITATIVE    CREED   STATEMENTS.  337 

stupidity,  by  which  man  is  rendered  utterly  incapable  of  nil  things 
divine  or  spiritual.  .  .  .  3d.  Moreover  that  original  sin  in  human 
nature  does  not  only  involve  the  total  loss  and  absence  of  all  good  in 
matters  spiritual  and  pertaining  to  God;  but  that  also  in  the  place  of  the 
lost  likeness  to  God  there  is  in  man  an  inward,  most  evil,  profound  (like 
an  abyss),  inscrutable,  and  ineffable  corruption  of  the  whole  nature  and 
of  all  the  powers,  and  primarily  in  the  principle  and  superior  faculties 
of  the  soul,  in  the  mind,  intellect,  heart,  and  will. 

lb.,  p.  645. — "But  although  this  original  sin  infects  and  corrupts  the 
whole  nature  of  man,  as  a  kind  of  spiritual  poison  and  leprosy  (as  Dr. 
Luther  says),  so  that  now  in  our  corrupted  nature  it  is  not  possible  to 
show  to  the  eye  these  two  apart,  the  nature  alone,  or  the  original  sin 
alone;  nevertheless  that  corrupt  nature,  or  substance  of  the  corrupt  man, 
the  body  and  soul,  or  the  man  himself  as  created  by  God  in  whom  the 
original  sin  dwells,  is  not  one  and  the  same  with  that  original  sin  which 
dwells  in  the  nature  or  essence  of  man  and  corrupts  it;  just  as  in  the 
body  of  a  leper,  the  leprous  body  and  the  leprosy  itself,  which  is  in 
the  body,  is  not  one  and  the  same. 

Reformed  Doctrine.  —  "Belgic  Confession,"  Art.  15. —  "  (Peccatum 
originis)  is  that  corruption  of  the  whole  nature  and  that  hereditary  vice, 
by  which  even  themselves  in  their  mothers'  wombs  are  polluted,  and 
which,  as  a  root,  produces  every  kind  of  sin  in  man,  and  is  therefore 
so  base  and  execrable  in  the  sight  of  God,  that  it  suffices  to  the  condem- 
nation of  the  human  race." 

"Gallic  Con/.,"  Art.  11. — "We  believe  that  this  vice  (originis)  is  true 
sin,  which  makes  all  and  every  man,  not  even  excepting  little  infants, 
hitherto  hiding  in  the  womb  of  their  mothers,  deserving  (reos)  before 
God  of  eternal  death." 

"Thirty-nine  Articles  of  Ch.  of  Eng."  Art.  9. — "  (Original  or  birth  sin) 
is  the  fault  and  corruption  of  the  nature  of  eveiy  man,  that  naturally  is 
engendered  of  the  offspring  of  Adam;  whereby  man  is  very  far  gone 
from  original  righteousness,  and  is  of  his  own  nature  inclined  to  evil,  so 
that  the  flesh  lusteth  always  contrary  to  the  spirit;  and  therefore  in  every 
person  born  into  this  world,  it  deserveth  God's  wrath  and  damnation." 

Remonstrant  Doctrine. — "Apol.  Conf.  Remonstrant.,  p.  84. — "They 
(the  Remonstrants)  do  not  regard  original  sin  as  sin  properly  so  called, 
nor  as  an  evil  which  as  a  penalty,  in  the  strict  sense  of  that  word,  passes 
over  from  Adam  upon  his  posterity,  but  as  an  evil,  infirmity,  or  vice,  or 
whatever  name  it  may  be  designated  by,  which  is  propagated  from  Adam, 
deprived  of  original  righteousness,  to  his  posterity. 

IAmborch  "Theol.  Christ. ,"  iii.  3,  4. — "We  confess  also  that  infants 
are  born  less  pure  than  Adam  was  created,  and  with  a  certain  propensity 
to  sinning,  but  this  they  receive  not  so  much  from  Adam,  as  from  their 
immediate  parents,  since  if  it  were  from  Adam,  it  ought  to  be  equal  in 
all  men.  But  now  it  is  in  the  highest  degree  unequal,  and  ordinarily 
children  are  inclined  to  the  sins  of  their  parents. 

SociNiAN  Doctrine. — "Racovian  Catechism,"  -p.  294. — "And  the  fall 
of  Adam,  since  it  was  one  act,  could  not  have  had  the  power  of  corrupt- 
ing the  nature  of  Adam  himself,  much  less  that  of  his  posterity.  We  do 
not  deny,  however,  that  from  the  constant  habit  of  sinning,  the  nature 
of  man  has  become  infected  with  a  certain  fall  and  excessive  proclivity 
to  sinning.     But  we  deny  that  this  is  per  se  sin,  or  of  that  nature." 


CHAPTER    XX. 

INABILITY. 

1.  State  the  three  main  elements  involved  in  the  consequeiuxa 
entailed  by  the  sin  of  Adam  upon  his  posterity. 

These  are — 1st.  The  guilt,  or  just  penal  responsibility  of 
Adam's  first  sin  or  apostatizing  act,  which  is  imputed  or  judi- 
cially charged  upon  his  descendants,  whereby  every  child  is 
born  into  the  world  in  a  state  of  antenatal  forfeiture  or  con- 
demnation. 2d.  The  entire  depravity  of  our  nature,  involving 
a  sinful  innate  disposition  inevitably  leading  to  actual  trans- 
gression. 3d.  The  entire  inability  of  the  soul  to  change  its  own 
nature,  or  to  do  any  thing  spiritually  good  in  obedience  to  the 
divine  law. 

2.  What  three  great  types  of  doctrine  on  the  subject  of  human 
ability  to  fulfil  the  law  of  God  have  alivays  coexisted  in  tJw  church  ? 

1st.  Pelagian. — (a.)  Moral  character  can  be  predicated  only 
of  volitions,  (b.)  Ability  is  always  the  measure  of  responsi- 
bility, (c.)  Hence  every  man  has  always  plenary  power  to  do 
all  that  it  is  his  duty  to  do.  (d.)  Hence  the  human  will  alone, 
to  the  exclusion  of  the  interference  of  any  internal  influence 
from  God,  must  decide  human  character  and  destiny.  The 
only  divine  influence  needed  by  man  or  consistent  with  his 
character  as  a  self-determined  agent  is  an  external,  providen- 
tial, and  educational  one. 

2d.  Semipelagian. — (a.)  Man's  nature  has  been  so  far  weak- 
ened by  the  fall  that  it  can  not  act  aright  in  spiritual  matters 
without  divine  assistance,  {b.)  This  weakened  moral  state 
which  infants  inherit  from  their  parents  is  the  cause  of  sin, 
but  not  itself  sin  in  the  sense  of  deserving  the  wrath  of  God. 
(c.)  Man  must  strive  to  do  his  whole  duty,  when  God  meets 
him  with  co-operative  grace,  and  renders  his  efforts  successful. 
(d.)  Man  is  not  responsible  for  the  sins  he  commits  until  after 
he  has  enjoyed  and  abused  the  influences  of  grace. 


"LIBERTY"    AND    "ABILITY"    DISTINGUISHED.         339 

3d.  Augusiinian. — "Which  was  adopted  by  all  the  original 
Protestant  Churches,  Lutheran  and  Reformed,  («.)  Man  is  by- 
nature  so  entirely  depraved  in  his  moral  nature  as  to  be  totally 
unable  to  do  any  thing  spiritually  good,  or  in  any  degree  to 
begin  or  to  dispose  himself  thereto,  (b.)  That  even  under  the 
exciting  and  suasory  influences  of  divine  grace  the  will  of  man 
is  totally  unable  to  act  aright  in  co-operation  with  grace,  until 
after  the  will  itself  is  by  the  energy  of  grace  radically  and  per- 
manently renewed,  (c.)  Even  after  the  renewal  of  the  will  it 
ever  continues  dependent  upon  divine  grace,  to  prompt,  direct, 
and  enable  it  in  the  performance  of  every  good  work. 

3.  How  does  the  usus  loquendi  of  tJie  words  "  Liberty "  and 
"Ability  "  in  this  connection,  among  the  early  differ  from  that  of  the 
later  Protestant  ivriters? 

The  early  writers  often  use  the  term  "  liberty  "  in  the  sense 
in  which  we  now  use  the  term  "  ability,"  and  deny  that  man 
since  the  fall  possesses  any  "  liberty "  of  will  with  respect  to 
divine  things. 

While  modern  theologians  hold  precisely  the  same  doctrine 
entertained  by  these  early  writers,  they  now  think  it  more  judi- 
cious to  distinguish  between  the  two  terms  in  their  constant 
use.  By  "  liberty  "  is  meant  the  inalienable  property  of  a  free 
agent,  good  or  bad,  to  exercise  volitions  as  he  pleases ;  that  is, 
according  to  the  prevailing  dispositions  and  tendencies  of  his 
soul.  By  "  ability,"  on  the  other  hand,  is  meant  the  power  of 
a  depraved  human  soul,  naturally  indisposed  to  spiritual  good, 
to  change  its  governing  tendencies  or  dispositions  by  means  of 
any  volition,  however  strenuous,  or  to  obey  the  requirements 
of  the  law  in  the  absence  of  all  holy  dispositions.  The  perma- 
nent affections  of  the  soul  govern  the  volitions,  but  the  voli- 
tions can  not  alter  the  affections.  And  when  we  say  that  no 
man  since  the  fall  has  any  ability  to  render  that  spiritual  obe- 
dience which  the  law  demands,  we  mean  (a)  that  the  radical 
moral  dispositions  of  every  man  is  opposed  to  that  obedience, 
and  (b)  man  has  absolutely  no  ability  to  change  them  or  (c) 
to  exercise  volitions  contrary  to  them. 

4.  State  the  orthodox  doctrine  both  negatively  and  positively. 

The  orthodox  doctrine  does  not  teach — 1st.  That  man  by  the 
fall  has  lost  any  of  his  constitutional  faculties  necessary  to  con- 
stitute him  a  responsible  moral  agent.  These  are  (a)  reason, 
(b)  conscience,  (c)  free  will.  Man  possesses  all  of  these  in  ex- 
ercise.  He  has  power  to  know  the  truth;  he  recognizes  and 
feels  moral  distinctions  and  obligations;  his  affections  and  ten- 
dencies and  habits  of  action  are  spontaneous;  in  all  his  volt 


340  INABILITY. 

tions  he  chooses  and  refuses  freely  as  he  pleases.  Therefore 
he  is  responsible.  Nor,  2d,  that  man  has  not  power  to  feel  and 
to  do  many  things  which  are  good  and  amiable,  benevolent 
and  just,  in  the  relations  he  sustains  to  his  fellow-men.  This 
is  often  admitted  in  the  Protestant  confessions  and  Theological 
Classics,  where  it  is  conceded  that  man  since  the  fall  has  a  ca- 
pacity for  humana  justicia,  and  " civil  good"  etc. 

But  the  Orthodox  doctrine  does  teach — 1st.  That  the  inability 
of  man  since  the  fall  concerns  things  which  involve  our  relation 
as  spiritual  beings  to  God — the  apprehension  and  love  of  spir- 
itual excellence  and  action  in  conformity  therewith.  These 
matters  are  designated  in  the  Confessions  "things  of  God," 
"things  of  the  Spirit,"  "things  which  pertain  to  salvation." 
2d.  That  man  since  the  fall  is  utterly  unable  to  know,  or  to 
feel,  or  to  act  in  correspondence  with  these  things.  A  natural 
man  may  be  intellectually  illuminated  but  he  is  spiritually  blind. 
He  may  possess  natural  affections,  but  his  heart  is  dead  toward 
God,  and  invinceably  averse  to  his  person  and  law.  He  may 
obey  the  letter,  but  he  can  not  obey  in  spirit  and  in  truth. 

5.  In  ivhat  sense  is  this  inability  absolute,  and  in  what  sense 
natural,  and  in  ivhat  sense  moral  ? 

1st.  It  is  absolute  in  the  proper  sense  of  that  term.  No  un- 
regenerate  man  has  power  either  directly  or  indirectly  to  do 
what  is  required  of  him  in  this  respect;  nor  to  change  his  own 
nature  so  as  to  increase  his  power;  nor  to  'prepare  himself  for 
grace,  nor  in  the  first  instance  to  co-operate  with  grace,  until  in 
the  act  of  regeneration  God  changes  his  nature  and  gives  him 
through  grace  gracious  ability  to  act  graciously  in  constant 
dependence  upon  grace. 

2d.  It  is  natural  in  the  sense  that  it  is  not  accidental  or 
adventitious  but  innate,  and  that  it  belongs  to  our  fallen  nature 
as  propagated  by  natural  law  from  parent  to  child  since  the  fall. 

3d.  It  is  not  natural  in  one  sense,  because  it  does  not  belong 
to  the  nature  of  man  as  created.  Man  was  created  with  plenary 
ability  to  do  all  that  was  in  any  way  required  of  him,  and  the 
possession  of  such  ability  is  always  requisite  to  the  moral  per- 
fection of  his  nature.  He  may  be  a  real  man  without  it,  but 
can  be  a  perfect  man  only  with  it.  The  ability  graciously 
bestowed  upon  man  in  regeneration  is  not  an  endowment  ex- 
tra-natural, out  consists  in  the  restoration  of  his  nature,  in  part, 
to  its  condition  of  primitive  integrity. 

4th.  It  is  not  natural  in  another  sense,  because  it  does  not 
result  in  the  least  from  any  constitutional  deficiency  in  human 
nature  as  it  now  exists  as  to  its  rational  and  moral  faculties 
of  soul. 


"NATURAL"    AND    "MORAL"    ABILITY.  341 

5th.  This  inability  is  purely  moral,  because  while  every  re- 
sponsible man  possesses  all  moral  as  well  as  intellectual  facul- 
ties requisite  for  right  action,  the  moral  state  of  his  faculties 
is  such  that  right  action  is  impossible.  Its  essence  is  in  the 
inability  of  the  soul  to  know,  love,  or  choose  spiritual  good,  and 
its  ground  exists  in  that  moral  corruption  of  soul  whereby  it  is 
blind,  insensible,  and  totally  averse  to  all  that  is  spiritually 
good 

6.  What  is  the  history  and  value  of  tlue  famous  distinction  be- 
tween natural  and  moral  ability  ? 

This  distinction  was  first  explicitly  presented  in  this  form 
by  John  Cameron,  born  in  Glasgow,  1580,  Prof,  in  the  Theo* 
logical  School  in  Saumur,  France,  1618,  died  1625. 

President  Edwards  in  his  great  work  "On  the  Will,"  Pt.  I., 
Sec.  4,  adopts  the  same  terms,  affirming  that  men  since  the  fall 
have  natural  ability  to  do  all  that  is  required  of  them,  but  are 
destitute  of  moral  ability  to  do  so.  By  natural  ability  he  meant 
the  possession  by  every  responsible  free  agent,  as  the  condition 
of  his  responsibility,  of  all  the  constitutional  faculties  necessary 
to  enable  him  to  obey  God's  law.  By  moral  ability  he  meant 
that  inherent  moral  state  of  those  faculties,  that  righteous  dis- 
position of  heart,  requisite  to  the  performance  of  those  duties. 

As  thus  stated,  and  as  President  Edwards  held  and  used  it, 
there  is  no  question  as  to  the  validity  and  importance  of  this 
distinction.  The  same  principle  is  explicitly  recognized  in  the 
statement  of  the  orthodox  doctrine  given  above,  Questions  4 
and  5.  Nevertheless  we  seriously  object  to  the  phraseology 
used,  for  the  following  reasons: 

1st.  This  phraseology  has  no  warrant  in  the  analogy  of 
Scripture.  They  never  say  that  man  has  one  kind  of  ability 
but  has  not  another.  They  everywhere  consistently  teach  that 
man  is  not  able  to  do  what  is  required  of  him.  They  never 
teach  that  he  is  able  in  any  sense. 

2d.  It  has  never  been  adopted  in  the  Creed  Statements  of 
any  one  of  the  Reformed  Churches. 

3d.  It  is  essentially  ambiguous.  It  has  been  often  used  to 
express,  sometimes  to  cover,  Semipelagian  error.  It  is  naturally 
misleading  and  confusing  when  addressed  to  the  struggling 
sinner.  This  language  assures  him  that  he  is  able  in  a  certain 
sense,  when  it  is  only  true  that  he  possesses  some  of  the  essential 
prerequisites  of  ability.  Ability  begins  only  after  all  its  essen- 
tial conditions  are  present.  To  say  that  a  dead  bird  has  mus- 
cular ability  to  fly,  and  only  lacks  vital  ability,  is  trifling  with 
words.  The  truth  is,  the  sinner  is  absolutely  unable  because  of 
a  moral  deficiency.     It  is  right  enough  to  say  that  his  inability 


342  INABILITY. 

is  purely  and  simply  moral.  But  it  is  simply  untrue  and  mis- 
leading to  tell  him  he  has  natural  ability,  when  the  fact  ia 
precisely  that  he  is  unable.  The  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in 
regeneration  is  not  a  mere  moral  suasion  but  a  new  moral 
creation. 

4th.  Natural  is  not  the  proper  antithesis  of  moral.  A  thing 
may  be  at  the  same  time  natural  and  moral.  This  inability  of 
man  as  shown  above,  is  certainly  wholly  moral,  and  it  is  yet  in 
an  important  sense  natural,  i.  e.,  incident  to  his  nature  in  its 
present  state  as  naturally  propagated. 

5th.  The  language  does  not  accurately  express  the  important 
distinction  intended.  The  inability  is  moral  and  is  not  either 
physical  or  constitutional.  It  has  its  ground  not  in  the  want 
of  any  faculty,  but  in  the  corrupt  moral  state  of  the  faculties, 
in  the  inveterate  disinclination  of  the  affections  and  dispositions 
of  the  voluntary  nature. 

7.  Prove  the  fact  of  this  inability  from  Scripture. 

Jer.  xiii.  23;  John  vi.  44,  65;  xv.  5;  Eom.  ix.  16;  1  Cor.  ii.  14 

8.  Prove  tJie  same  from  what  tlie  Scriptures  teach  of  the  moral 
condition  of  man  by  nature. 

It  is  a  state  of  spiritual  blindness  and  darkness,  Eph.  iv.  18, 
of  spiritual  death. — Col.  ii.  13.  The  unregenerate  are  the  "ser- 
vants  of  sin." — Eom.  vi.  20.  They  are  "without  strength." — 
Rom.  v.  6.  Men  are  said  to  be  subjects  of  Satan  and  led  about 
by  him  at  his  will. — 2  Tim.  ii.  26.  The  only  way  to  change 
the  character  of  our  actions  is  declared  to  be  to  change  the 
character  of  our  hearts. — Matt.  xii.  33-35. 

9.  Prove  tlve  same  from  what  tlve  Scriptures  teach  as  to  the  na- 
ture and  necessity  of  regeneration. 

As  to  its  nature  it  is  taught  that  regeneration  is  a  "new 
birth,"  a  "new  creation,"  a  "begetting  anew,"  a  "giving  a  new 
heart" — the  subjects  of  it  are  "new  creatures,"  "God's  work- 
manship," etc.  It  is  accomplished  by  the  "exceeding  greatness 
of  the  mighty  power  of  God." — Eph.  i.  18-20.  All  Christian 
graces,  as  love,  joy,  faith,  peace,  etc.,  are  declared  to  be  "  fruits 
of  the  Spirit." — Gal.  v.  22,  23.  God  "worketh  in  you  to  will 
and  to  do  of  his  good  pleasure." — Phil.  ii.  13. 

As  to  its  necessity  this  radical  change  of  the  governing  states 
and  proclivities  of  the  will  itself  is  declared  to  be  absolutely 
necessary  in  the  case  of  every  child  of  Adam,  without  exception, 
in  order  to  salvation. 

It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  man  must  be  absolutely  spiritually 
impotent  antecedent  to  this  change  wrought  in  him  by  divine 


DOCTRINE    PROVED.  313 

power,  and  that  all  ability  he  may  ever  have  even  to  co-operate 
with  the  grace  that  saves  him,  must  be  consequent  upon  that 
change. 

10.  Prove  the  same  from  experience. 

1st.  From  the  experience  of  every  convinced  sinner.  All 
genuine  conviction  of  sin  embraces  these  two  elements:  (a.)  A 
thorough  conviction  of  responsibility  and  guilt,  justifying  God 
and  prostrating  self  before  him  in  confession  and  absolute  self- 
emptying,  (b.)  A  thorough  conviction  of  our  own  moral  impo- 
tence and  dependence  as  much  upon  divine  grace  to  enable  us, 
as  upon  Christ's  merits  to  justify  us.  A  sinner  must  in  both 
senses,  i.  e.,  as  to  guilt  and  as  to  helplessness,  be  brought  into 
a  state  of  utter  self-despair,  or  he  can  not  be  brought  to  Christ. 

2d.  From  the  experience  of  every  true  Christian.  His  most 
intimate  conviction  is  (a.)  that  he  was  absolutely  helpless  and 
that  he  was  saved  by  a  divine  intervention,  ab  extra,  (b.)  That 
his  present  degree  of  spiritual  strength  is  sustained  solely  by 
the  constant  communications  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  that  he 
lives  spiritually  only  as  he  clings  close  to  Christ. 

3d.  From  the  universal  experience  of  the  human  family. 
We  argue  that  man  is  absolutely  destitute  of  spiritual  ability, 
because  there  has  never  been  discovered  a  single  example  of 
a  mere  man  who  has  exercised  it  since  the  foundation  of  the 
earth. 

11.  State  and  refute  the  objection  brought  against  our  doctrine 
on  the  alleged  ground  that  "ability  is  the  measure  of  responsibility." 

The  maxim  that  "ability  is  the  measure  of  responsibility" 
is  undoubtedly  true  under  some  conditions  and  false  under 
others.  The  mistake  which  utterly  vitiates  the  above  cited 
objection  to  the  Scriptural  doctrine  of  inability,  consists  in  a 
failure  to  discriminate  between  the  conditions  under  which  the 
maxim  is  true,  and  the  conditions  under  which  it  is  false. 

It  is  a  self-evident  truth,  and  one  not  denied  by  any  party, 
that  an  inability  which  consists  either  (a)  in  the  absence  of  the 
faculties  absolutely  necessary  for  the  performance  of  a  duty, 
or  (ft)  in  the  absence  of  an  opportunity  to  use  them,  is  entirely 
inconsistent  with  moral  responsibility  in  the  case.  If  a  man 
has  not  eyes,  or  if  having  them  he  is  unavoidably  destitute  of 
light,  he  can  not  be  morally  bound  to  see.  So,  likewise,  if  a 
man  is  destitute  of  intellect,  or  of  natural  conscience,  or  of  any 
of  the  constitutional  faculties  essential  to  moral  agency,  he  can 
not  be  responsible  for  acting  as  a  moral  agent. 

And  it  is  further  evident  that  this  irresponsibility  arises 


344  INABILITY. 

solely  from  the  bare  fact  of  the  inability.  It  matters  not  at  all 
in  this  respect  whether  the  inability  be  self-induced  or  not,  if 
only  it  be  a  real  incapacity.  A  man,  for  instance,  who  has 
put  out  his  own  eyes  in  order  to  avoid  the  draft,  may  be 
justly  held  responsible  for  that  act,  but  he  can  never  more  be 
held  responsible  for  seeing,  i.  e.,  for  using  eyes  that  he  does 
not  possess. 

On  the  other  hand  it  is  no  less  evident  that  when  the  ina- 
bility consists  solely  in  the  want  of  the  proper  dispositions  and 
affections,  instead  of  being  inconsistent  with  responsibility  it 
is  the  very  ground  and  reason  of  just  condemnation.  Nothing 
is  more  certain  nor  more  universally  confessed,  than  that  the 
affections  and  dispositions  are  (1.)  not  under  the  control  of  the 
will.  They  can  no  more  be  changed  than  our  stature  by  a 
mere  volition.     (2.)  Yet  we  are  responsible  for  them. 

Those  who  maintain  that  responsibility  is  necessarily  lim 
ited  by  ability  must  consequently  hold  either  (1)  that  every 
man,  however  degraded,  is  able  by  a  volition  at  once  to  conform 
himself  to  the  highest  standard  of  virtue,  which  is  absurd;  or 
(2)  that  the  standard  of  moral  obligation  is  lowered  more  and 
more  in  proportion  as  a  man  sins,  and  by  sin  loses  the  capacity 
for  obedience,  i  e.,  that  moral  obligation  decreases  as  guilt  in- 
creases, or  in  other  words  that  God's  rights  decrease  as  our 
rebellion  against  him  increases.  Which  is  also  absurd.  For  the 
principle  obviously  vacates  law  altogether,  making  both  its  pre- 
cept and  penalty  void,  since  the  sinner  carries  the  law  down 
with  himself.  It  takes  the  law  out  of  God's  hands,  and  puts 
it  in  the  hands  of  the  sinner,  who  always  determines  the  extent 
of  its  requirements  by  the  extent  of  his  own  apostasy. 

12.  Prove  that  men  are  responsible  for  their  affections* 

1st  The  whole  volume  of  Scripture  testifies  to  the  fact  that 
God  requires  men  to  possess  right  affections,  and  that  he  judges 
and  treats  men  according  to  their  affections.  Christ  declares 
(Matt.  xxii.  37-40)  that  the  whole  moral  law  is  summarily 
comprehended  in  these  two  commandments,  to  love  God  with 
the  whole  heart,  and  our  neighbor  as  ourselves.  "  On  these 
two  commandments  hang  all  the  law  and  the  prophets."  But 
"  love  "  is  an  affection  not  a  volition,  nor  is  it  under  the  imme- 
diate control  of  the  volitions. 

2d.  It  is  the  instinctive  judgment  of  all  men  that  moral  dis- 
positions and  affections  are  intrinsically  either  good  or  evil, 
and  worthy  in  every  case  according  to  their  character,  and 
irrespective  of  their  origin  of  praise  or  blame.     Some  affections 

•  Dr.  Charles  Hodge's  "Lectures" 


OBJECTIONS   ANSWERED.  345 

indeed  art  in  themselves  morally  indifferent  and  become  right 
or  wrong  only  when  adopted  by  the  will  as  a  principle  of  action 
in  preference  to  other  competing  principles,  e.  g.,  the  affection 
of  self-love.  But  there  are  other  affections  which  are  intrin- 
sically good,  like  love  to  God  and  disinterested  benevolence 
towards  our  fellow-creatures,  and  others  which  are  intrinsically 
evil,  like  malice  or  distrust  of  God,  without  any  consideration 
of  their  origin. — Rom.  vii.  14-23.  Every  volition  derives  all 
its  moral  quality  from  the  quality  of  the  affection  that  prompts 
it;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  the  moral  quality  of  the  affection 
is  original,  and  independent,  and  absolute. 

3d.  The  Scriptures  and  universal  Christian  experience  teach 
that  the  common  condition  of  man  is  one  at  once  morally  im- 
potent and  responsible.    Hence  the  two  can  not  be  inconsistent. 

13.  How  can  maris  inability  be  reconciled  with  the  commands, 
promises,  and  threatenings  of  God? 

God  righteously  deals  with  the  sinner  according  to  the  meas- 
ure of  his  responsibility,  and  not  according  to  the  measure  of 
his  sinful  inability.  It  would  have  been  a  compromise  alto- 
gether unworthy  of  God  to  have  lowered  his  demands  in  pro- 
portion to  man's  sin.  Besides,  under  the  gospel  dispensation, 
God  makes  use  of  his  commands,  promises,  and  threatenings, 
as  gracious  means,  under  the  influence  of  his  Spirit,  to  enlighten 
the  minds,  quicken  the  consciences,  and  to  sanctify  the  hearts 
of  men. 

14.  How  can  mans  inability  be  shown  to  be  consistent  with  the 
rational  use  of  means  ? 

The  efficiency  of  all  means  lies  in  the  power  of  God,  and  not 
in  the  ability  of  man.  God  has  established  a  connection  be- 
tween certain  means  and  the  ends  desired;  he  has  commanded 
us  to  use  them,  and  has  promised  to  bless  them ;  and  human 
experience  has  proved  God's  faithfulness  to  his  engagements, 
and  the  instrumental  connection  between  the  means  and  the 
end. 

15.  Show  that  the  legitimate  practical  effect  of  this  doctrine  is 
not  to  lead  sinners  to  procrastinate. 

It  obviously  and  rightly  tends  to  extinguish  the  false  hopes 
of  every  sinner,  and  to  paralyze  their  efforts  to  extricate  them- 
selves in  the  exercise  of  their  own  strength,  or  in  reliance  upon 
their  own  resources.  But  both  reason  and  experience  assure 
us  that  the  natural  and  actual  effect  of  this  great  truth  is — 
1st.  To  humble  the  soul  and  fill  it  with  self-despair.     2d.   To 


346  INABILITY. 

shut  it  up  to  immediate  and  unreserved  reliance  upon  the  sov 
ereign  grace  of  God  in  Christ,  the  only  ground  of  possible  hope 
remaining.  3d.  Subsequent  to  conversion  this  truth  leads  the 
soul  of  the  Christian  to  habitual  self-distrust,  diligence,  and 
watchfulness,  and  to  habitual  confidence  in  and  gratitude 
towards  God. 

The  Authoritative  Statements  of  the  Various  Churches. 

Romish  Doctrine. — "  Council  of  Trent,"  Sess.  6,  can.  7. — "If  any  one 
shall  say,  that  all  the  works  performed  before  justification,  on  whatso- 
ever principle  they  are  done,  are  truly  sins,  and  merit  the  wrath  of  God 
.  .  .  .  anathema  sit."  See  further  under  the  heads  of  "  Original 
Sin"  and  "Effectual  Calling." 

Lutheran  Doctrine. — "Aug.  Con/.,"  p.  15. — "Human  will  possesses 
a  certain  ability  (libertatem)  for  effecting  civil  righteousness,  and  for 
choosing  things  apparent  to  the  senses.  But,  without  the  Holy  Spirit, 
it  has  not  the  power  of  effecting  the  righteousness  of  God,  or  spiritual 
righteousness,  because  the  animal  man  does  not  perceive  those  things 
which  are  of  the  Spirit  of  God." 

"Formula  Concordia?"  p.  579. — "Therefore  we  believe  that  as  much 
as  the  power  is  wanting  to  a  corpse  to  revive  itself,  and  restore  to  itself 
corporeal  life,  by  so  much  is  all  and  every  faculty  wanting  to  a  man, 
who  by  reason  of  sin  is  spiritually  dead,  of.  recalling  himself  to  spiritual 
life."  lb.,  p.  656. — "We  believe  that  the  intellect,  heart,  and  will  of  an 
unrenewed  man  are  altogether  unable,  in  spiritual  and  divine  things,  and 
of  their  own  proper  natural  vigor,  to  understand,  to  believe,  to  embrace, 
to  think,  to  will,  to  commence,  to  perfect,  to  transact,  to  operate,  or 
to  co-operate  any  thing. " 

Reformed  Doctrine. — "  Thirty-nine  Articles  of  the  Church  of England '," 
Art.  10. — "  The  condition  of  man  after  the  fall  of  Adam,  is  such,  that  he 
can  not  turn  and  prepare  himself,  by  his  own  natural  strength  and  good 
works,  to  faith  and  calling  upon  God :  wherefore  we  have  no  power  to 
do  good  works  pleasant  and  acceptable  to  God,  without  the  grace  of 
God  by  Christ  preventing  us,  that  we  may  have  a  good-will,  and  work- 
ing with  us  when  we  have  that  good-will." 

"Conf.  Helvetica  Posterior." — "In  the  unrenewed  man  there  is  no 
free-will  for  good,  and  no  strength  for  performing  that  which  is  good. 
.  .  .  .  No  one  denies  that  in  external  things  the  renewed  and  the 
unrenewed  alike  have  free-will;  for  man  has  this  constitution  in  common 
with  the  other  animals,  that  some  things  he  wills,  and  some  things  he  wills 
not.  .  .  .  We  condemn  on  this  subject  the  Manicheans,  who  deny 
that  evil  originated  in  the  exercise  of  a  free-will  by  a  good  man.  We 
also  condemn  the  Pelagians,  who  say  that  even  the  bad  man  possesses 
sufficient  free-will  for  performing  the  good  commanded." 

"Formula  Consensus  Helvetica,"  Can.  22. — "We  hold  therefore  that 
they  speak  with  too  little  accuracy  and  not  without  danger,  who  call  this 
inability  to  believe  moral  inability,  and  do  not  hold  it  to  be  natural,  add- 
ing that  man  in  whatever  condition  he  may  be  placed  is  able  to  believe 
if  he  will,  and  that  faith  in  some  way  or  other,  indeed,  is  self -originated; 
and  yet  the  Apostle  most  distinctly  calls  it  the  gift  of  God  "  (Eph.  ii.  8). 

"Articles  of  Synod  of  Dort,"  Chap.  iii.  Art.  3. — "  All  men  are  conceived 
in  sin,  and  born  children  of  wrath,  indisposed  to  all  saving  good,  pre- 
pense to  evil,  dead  in  sins  and  the  slaves  of  sin,  and  without  the  grace  of 


AUTHORITATIVE    CHURCH  STATEMENTS.  347 

the  regenerating  Holy  Spirit  they  are  neither  willing  nor  able  to  return 
to  God,  to  correct  their  depraved  nature,  or  to  dispose  themselves  to  the 
correction  of  it. " 

"Confession  of  Faith,"  Chap.  is..  \  3.  —"Man,  by  his  fall  and  state  of 
sin,  hath  wholly  lost  all  ability  of  will  to  any  spiritual  good  accompany- 
ing salvation  ;  so  as  a  natural  man,  being  altogether  averse  from  that 
good,  and  dead  in  sin,  is  not  able,  by  his  own  strength,  to  convert  him- 
self, or  to  prepare  himself  thereunto. " 

Bemonstrant  Doctrine. — Limborch,  "  Tlieol.  Christ,"  Lib.  4,  ch. 
14.  \  21. — "The  grace  of  God  is  the  primary  cause  of  faith,  without 
which  a  man  is  not  able  rightly  to  use  his  free-will.  .  .  .  Therefore 
free-will  co-operates  with  grace,  otherwise  the  obedience  or  the  disobe- 
dience of  man  would  have  no  place.  .  .  .  Grace  is  not  the  sole 
cause,  although  it  is  the  primary  cause  of  salvation,  .  .  for  the  co-op- 
eration itself  of  the  free-will  with  grace  is  of  grace  as  a  primary  cause  : 
for  unless  the  free-will  had  been  excited  by  prevenient  grace  it  would 
not  have  been  able  to  co-operate  with  grace. " 

Soctnian  Doctrine. — "Bacovian  Catechism,"  Ques.  422. — "Is  not 
free-will  placed  in  our  power  so  that  we  may  obey  God  ?  Surely, 
because  it  is  certain  that  the  first  man  was  so  constituted  by  God  that 
he  was  endowed  with  free-will.  Nor  truly  has  any  cause  supervened 
why  God  should  have  deprived  man  of  that  free-will  subsequently  to 
bis  falL" 


CHAPTER    XXI. 

IMPUTATION  OF  ADAM'S  FIRST    SIN. 

1.  Give  a  summary  statement  of  the  facts  already  proved  from 
Scripture,  consciousness,  and  observation,  and  generally  acknoivlr 
edged  in  all  Creeds  of  the  Protestant  Churches,  as  to  man's  moral 
and  spiritual  condition  from  birth  and  by  nature. 

1st.  All  men,  without  exception,  begin  to  sin  as  soon  as 
they  enter  upon  moral  agency.  2d.  They  are  all  born  with 
an  antecedent  and  prevailing  tendency  in  their  nature  to  sin. 
3d.  This  innate  tendency  is  itself  sin  m  the  strictest  sense.  It 
is  inherently  ill-deserving  as  well  as  polluting  and  destruc- 
tive, and  without  any  reference  to  its  origin  in  Adam,  it  fully 
deserves  God's  wrath  and  curse,  and  except  when  expiated  by 
the  blood  of  Christ  is  always  visited  with  that  curse.  Presi- 
dent Edwards,  "  Freedom  of  the  Will,"  pt.  4,  sec.  1,  says,  "  The 
essence  of  the  virtue  and  vice  of  dispositions  of  the  heart  lies 
not  in  their  cause  but  their  nature."  4th.  Men  are,  therefore, 
by  nature,  totally  averse  to  all  good  and  unable  of  themselves 
to  reverse  the  evil  tendency  inherent  in  their  nature  and  to 
choose  good  in  preference  to  evil.  5th.  Consequently  they 
are  by  nature  children  of  wrath,  their  character  formed  and 
their  evil  destiny  fixed  antecedent  to  any  personal  action  of 
their  own. 

2.  Show  that  the  real  difficulty  in  reconciling  the  ways  of  God  to 
man  lies  in  these  unquestionable  facts  ;  and  further,  that  recognition 
of  these  facts  in  their  integrity  is  of  far  more  doctrinal  importance 
than  any  account  of  their  origin  can  possibly  be. 

That  we  begin  to  exist,  antecedent  to  possible  personal 
agency,  with  a  nature  which  justly  condemns  us  and  infallibly 
predisposes  us  to  actual  sin,  is  an  amazing  mystery,  an  ineffable 
curse,  and  yet  a  certain  and  universal  fact.  No  possible  theory 
as  to  its  origin  can  aggravate  its  mystery  or  its  terrible  signifi- 
cance.    We  do  not  claim  that  the  doctrine  of  our  responsibility 


MORAL  PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  DEALINGS  OF  GOD.         349 

for  Adam's  apostatizing  act  is  without  grave  difficulties.  But 
we  do  maintain  (a)  that  it  is  taught  in  Scripture,  and  (b)  that 
it  is  more  satisfactory  to  reason  and  to  our  moral  feelings  than 
any  other  solution  ever  given. 

Tt  is  no  less  evident  that  the  full  recognition  of  these  facts 
is  of  far  more  doctrinal  and  practical  importance  than  any  ex- 
planation of  their  origin  or  occasion  can  be.  Our  views  as  to 
these  facts  must  at  once  determine  our  relation  to  God,  the 
entire  character  of  our  religious  experience,  and  our  views  as 
to  the  nature  of  sin  and  grace,  the  necessity  and  nature  of  re- 
demption, regeneration,  and  sanctification,  while  any  rationale 
of  these  facts  will  only  clear  and  enlarge  our  views  as  to  the 
consistency  of  God's  dealings  with  the  human  race  with  his 
own  perfections,  and  as  to  the  relations  of  the  several  parts  of 
the  divine  plan  with  each  other. 

Hence  we  find — (1.)  That  these  facts  as  to  man's  innate 
sinfulness  are  much  more  prominently  and  frequently  set  forth 
in  the  Scriptures  than  is  the  assertion  of  our  responsibility  for 
Adam's  act  of  apostasy.  (2.)  That  these  have  been  clearly 
defined  and  uniformly  agreed  upon  by  all  parties  and  in  all 
ages  of  the  Christian  Church,  while  with  respect  to  our  connec- 
tion with  Adam  there  has  prevailed  a  great  deal  of  vagueness 
and  contrariety  of  view. — Principal  Cunningham's  "Theo.  of 
the  Kef.,"  Essay  vii.,  1. 

3.  State  the  self-evident  moral  principles  lohich  must  be  certainly 
presupposed  in  every  inquiry  into  the  dealings  of  God  with  his  re- 
sponsible creatures. 

(1.)  God  can  not  be  the  author  of  sin.  (2.)  We  must  not 
believe  that  he  could  consistently  with  his  own  perfections 
create  a  creature  de  novo  with  a  sinful  nature.  (3.)  The  per- 
fection of  righteousness,  not  bare  sovereignty,  is  the  grand  dis- 
tinction of  all  God's  dealings.  The  error  that  the  volition  of 
God  determines  moral  distinctions,  was  for  opposite  reasons 
maintained  by  the  Supralapsarians  Twisse,  Gomar,  etc.,  and  by 
such  Arminians  as  Grotius,  the  one  to  show  that  God  might 
condemn  whom  he  pleased  irrespective  of  real  guilt,  and  the 
other  to  show  that  he  could  save  whom  he  pleased  irrespective 
of  a  real  atonement.  The  fundamental  truth,  however,  now 
admitted  by  all  Christians,  is  that  the  immutable  moral  perfec- 
tions of  God's  nature  constitute  the  absolute  standard  of  right, 
and  in  every  action  determine  his  will,  and  are  manifested  in 
all  his  works.  (4.)  It  is  a  heathen  notion,  adopted  by  natural- 
istic rationalists,  that  the  "order  of  nature,"  or  the  "nature  of 
things,"  or  "natural  law,"  is  a  real  agent  independent  of  God, 
limiting  his  freedom,  or  acting  with  him  as  an  independent 


350  IMPUTATION   OF  ADAM'S   FIRST   SIN. 

concause  in  producing  effects.  "Nature"  is  simply  God's  crea- 
ture and  instrument.  What  is  generated  by  nature  is  made  by 
God.  (5.)  We  can  not  believe  that  God  would  inflict  either 
moral  or  physical  evil  upon  any  creature  whose  natural  rights 
had  not  been  previously  justly  forfeited.  (6.)  Every  moral 
agent  must  in  justice  enjoy  a  fair  probation,  i.  e.,  a  trial  so 
conditioned  as  to  afford  at  least  as  much  opportunity  of  success 
as  liability  to  failure. 

4.  State  the  two  distinct  questions  thence  arising,  which  though 
frequently  confused,  it  is  essential  to  keep  separate. 

1st.  How  does  an  innate  sinful  nature  originate  in  each  hu- 
man being  at  the  commencement  of  his  existence,  so  that  the 
Maker  of  the  man  is  not  the  cause  of  his  sin.  If  this  corrup- 
tion of  nature  originated  in  Adam,  How  is  it  transmitted  to  us  ? 

2d.  Why,  on  what  ground  of  justice,  does  God  inflict  this 
terrible  evil,  the  root  and  ground  of  all  other  evils,  at  the  very 
commencement  of  personal  existence?  What  fair  probation 
have  infants  born  in  sin  enjoyed?  When,  and  Why,  were  their 
rights  as  new  created  beings  forfeited? 

It  is  self-evident  that  these  questions  are  distinct,  and  should 
be  treated  as  such.  The  first  may  possibly  be  answered  on 
physiological  grounds.  The  second  question  however  concerns 
the  moral  government  of  God,  and  inquires  concerning  the 
justice  of  his  dispensations.  In  the  history  of  theology  of  all 
ages  and  in  all  schools  very  much  confusion  has  resulted  from 
the  failure  to  emphasize  and  preserve  prominent  this  distinction. 

i.  how  does  it  come  to  pass  that  human  souls  are  corrupt  from 
Birth?  If  this  Corruption  is  Transmitted  from  Adam, 
How  is  it  Transmitted? 

5.  What  answers  have  been  given  to  this  question  which  deny 
or  ignore  the  Adamic  origin  of  sin  ? 

1st.  The  Manichsean  theory,  adopted  by  Manes,  a.  d.  240, 
from  the  dualism  of  Zoroaster,  of  the  eternal  self-existence  of 
ttvo  principles,  the  one  good  identified  with  the  absolute  God, 
the  other  evil  identified  with  matter,  or  that  principle  of  which 
matter  is  one  of  the  manifestations.  Our  spirits  have  their  pri- 
mal origin  with  God,  while  sin  necessarily  results  from  their 
entanglement  with  matter.  This  system  obviously  destroys  the 
moral  character  of  sin,  and  was  earnestly  opposed  by  all  the 
early  fathers  of  the  Christian  church. 

2d.  The  Pantheistic  theory  that  sin  is  the  necessary  incident 
of  a  finite  nature  (limitation).     Some  writers,  not  absolute  Pan- 


DIFFERENT  VIEWS  AS  TO  PROPAGATION  OF  SIN.        35] 

theists,  regard  it  as  incident  to  a  certain  stage  of  development 
and  the  appointed  means  of  higher  perfection. 

3d.  Pelagians  and  nationalists,  denying  innate  corruption, 
refer  the  general  fact  that  actual  sin  occurs  as  soon  as  man 
emerges  into  free  agency  to  the  freedom  of  the  will,  or  to  the 
influence  of  example,  etc. 

4th.  Others  refer  this  guilty  corruption  of  nature,  which  in- 
heres in  every  human  soul  from  birth,  to  an  actual  apostasy  of 
each  soul  committed  before  birth,  either  in  a  state  of  individual 
pre-existence,  as  Origen  and  Dr.  Edward  Beecher  in  his  "  Con- 
flict of  Ages  "  teach;  or  as  transcendental  and  timeless,  as  Dr. 
Julius  Muller  teaches  in  his  "  Christian  Doctrine  of  Sin,"  Vol. 
II.,  p.  157.  This  is  evidently  a  pure  speculation,  unsupported 
by  any  facts  of  consciousness  or  of  observation,  contradicted  by 
the  testimony  of  Scripture,  Rom.  v.  12,  and  Gen.  iii.,  and  one 
which  has  never  been  accepted  by  the  Church. 

6.  What  different  views  have  been  held  by  Christian  theologians 
who  admit  the  Adamic  origin  of  human  sin,  as  to  tlw  mode  of  its 
propagation  from  Adam  to  his  descendants  ? 

This  is  obviously  a  question  of  very  inferior  importance  to 
the  moral  question  which  remains  to  be  discussed,  as  to  the 
grounds  in  right  and  justice  upon  which  God  directly  or  indi- 
rectly brings  this  curse  upon  all  men  at  birth.  Hence  it  is  a 
point  neither  explicitly  explained  in  Scripture,  nor  answered  in 
any  uniform  way  even  by  a  majority  of  theologians. 

From  the  beginning,  orthodox  theologians  have  been  dis- 
tinguished as  Traducianists  and  Creationists.  Tertullian  advo- 
cated the  doctrine  that  the  souls  of  children  are  derived  from 
the  souls  of  their  parents  by  natural  generation.  Jerome  held 
that  each  soul  is  independently  created  by  God  at  birth.  Au- 
gustine hesitated  between  the  two  views.  The  majority  of 
Romish  theologians  have  been  Creationists,  the  majority  of  Lu- 
theran theologians,  and  New  England  theologians  since  Dr. 
Hopkins,  have  been  Traducianists.  Nearly  all  the  theologians 
of  the  Reformed  church  have  been  Creationists. 

1st.  The  common  view  of  the  Traducianists  is  not  "that  soul 
is  begotten  from  soul,  nor  body  from  body,  but  the  whole  man 
from  the  whole  man." — D.  Pareus,  Heidelberg  (1548-1622),  on 
Rom.  v.  12.  In  this  view  it  is  plain  that  the  corrupted  moral 
nature  of  our  first  parents  would  be  inevitably  transmitted  to 
all  their  descendants  by  natural  generation. 

2d.  The  doctrine  of  pure  Realism  is  that  humanity  is  a  sin- 
gle generic  spiritual  substance  which  corrupted  itself  by  its 
own  voluntary  apostatising  act  in  Adam.  The  souls  of  indi- 
vidual men  are  not  separate  substances,  but  manifestations  of 


352  IMPUTATION   OF  ADAM'S   FIRST   SIN. 

this  single  generic  substance  through  their  several  bodily  or- 
ganizations. The  universal  soul  being  corrupt,  its  several  man- 
ifestations from  birth  are  corrupt  also. 

3d.  Those  who  hold  that  God  creates  each  soul  separately, 
have  generally  held  that  he  withholds  from  them  from  the  first 
those  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  which  all  spiritual  life 
in  the  creature  depends,  as  the  just  punishment  of  Adam's  sin, 
as  he  restores  this  life-giving  influence  in  consideration  of  the 
righteousness  of  Christ,  to  the  elect  in  the  act  of  regeneration. 
Dr.  T.  Ridgely,  London  (1667-1734),  says  Vol.  I.,  pp.  413,  414, 
"  God  creates  the  souls  of  men  destitute  of  heavenly  gifts,  and 
supernatural  light,  and  that  justly,  because  Adam  lost  those 
gifts  for  himself  and  his  posterity." 

A  few  Creationists  have,  like  Lampe,  Utrecht  (1683-1729), 
Tom.  I.,  p.  572,  taught  that  the  body  derived  from  the  parents 
"is  corrupted  by  inordinate  and  perverse  emotions  through 
sin,"  which  thus  communicates  like  inordinate  affections  to  the 
soul  placed  in  it  by  God.  This  latter  view  has  never  prevailed, 
since  sin  is  not  an  affection  of  matter,  and  can  belong  to  the 
body  only  as  an  organ  of  the  soul.  Many  Creationists,  however, 
refer  the  propagation  of  habitual  sin  to  natural  generation,  in 
a  general  sense,  as  a  law  whereby  God  ordains  that  children 
shall  be  like  their  parents,  without  inquiring  at  all  as  to  the 
method.  So  De  Moor,  Cap.  XV.,  §  33,  and  "  Canons  of  Synod 
of  Dort." 

II.  Why,  on  what  Ground  of  Justice  and  Right,  has  God  entailed 
this  Curse  of  Antenatal  Forfeiture  upon  all  Human  Beings 
antecedent  to  Personal  Agency? 

7.  What  is  the  Arminian  explanation  of  this  fact? 

1st.  They  admit  that  all  men  inherit  from  Adam  a  corrupt 
nature  predisposing  them  to  sin,  but  they  deny  that  this  innate 
condition  is  itself  properly  sin,  or  involves  guilt  or  desert  of 
punishment. 

2d.  They  affirm  that  it  was  consistent  with  the  justice  of 
God  to  allow  this  great  evil  to  come  upon  all  men  at  birth,  only 
in  view  of  the  fact  that  he  had  determined  to  introduce  an 
adequate  compensation  in  the  redemption  of  Christ,  impartially 
intended  for  all  men,  and  the  sufficient  influences  of  his  grace 
which  all  men  experience,  and  which  restores  to  all  ability  to 
do  right,  and  therefore  full  personal  responsibility.  Hence,  in- 
fants are  not  under  condemnation.  Condemnation  attaches  to 
no  man  until  he  has  abused  his  gracious  ability.  In  the  gift 
of  Christ,  God  redresses  the  wrong  done  US  by  allowing  Adam 
to  use  his  fallen  nature  as  the  medium  for  the  propagation 


CHURCH  DOCTRINE    STATED.  355 

of  sinful  children.— Dr.  D.  D.  Whedon,  '  Bibliotheca  Sacra," 
April,  1802,  "Conf.  Rem.,"  vii.  3,  Limborch,  "Theol.  Christ," 
iii.,  3,  4,  5,  67. 

We  object  to  this  doctrine. — (1.)  That  our  condemnation  in 
Adam  is  of  justice,  and  our  redemption  in  Christ  of  Grace. 
(2.)  The  remedy  of  the  compensatory  system  is  not  applied,  to 
many  heathen,  etc.  (3.)  The  view  is  inconsistent  with  Script- 
ural doctrines  as  to  sin,  inability,  regeneration,  etc.,  etc. 

8.  What  has  been  the  prevalent  answer  given  by  New  England 
TJveologians  since  the  days  of  Dr.  Hopkins  ? 

Dr.  Hopkins  taught  the  doctrine  of  divine  efficiency  in  the 
production  of  sin.  This,  of  course,  dissolves  the  question  as  to 
the  justice  of  God  in  bringing  Adam's  descendants  into  the 
world  as  sinners,  since  he  is  the  ultimate  cause  of  all  sin.  Later 
New  England  divines  discard  the  doctrine  of  divine  efficiency, 
but  they  agree  with  Hopkins  in  denying  imputation,  and  in 
referring  the  law  which  entails  the  corruption  of  Adam  upon 
each  of  his  descendants  to  a  sovereign  divine  constitution. 

If  this  view,  while  acknowledging  that  this  divine  consti- 
tution is  infinitely  just  and  righteous,  simply  disclaims  clear 
knowledge  of  its  grounds  and  reasons,  we  have  only  to  answer, 
that  while  in  part  we  sympathize  with  it,  we  dare  not  refuse 
the  partial  light  thrown  upon  the  problem  in  Scripture,  and 
exhibited  below.  But  if  the  design  of  these  theologians  be  to 
assert,  either  (1)  that  this  constitution  is  not  just,  or  (2)  that 
God's  bare  will  makes  it  to  be  just,  and  that  its  being  sovereign 
is  the  ground  of  its  being  righteous,  we  protest  against  it  as  a 
grievous  heresy. 

9.  What  is  the  orthodox  answer  to  the  above  question  in  which 
the  Romish  Lutheran  and  Reformed  Theologians  as  a  body  concur  ? 

It  is  certain  that  while  there  has  been  difference  of  opin- 
ion and  looseness  of  statement  as  to  the  grounds  of  our  just 
accountability  for  Adam's  first  sin,  the  whole  Church  has  always 
regarded  our  loss  of  original  righteousness  and  innate  moral 
corruption  to  be  a  just  and  righteous,  not  sovereign,  penal 
consequence  of  Adam's  apostatizing  act.  This  is  the  doctrine, 
agreement  with  which  is  alike  accordant  with  Scripture,  honor- 
ing to  the  moral  attributes  of  God  and  the  equity  of  his  moral 
government,  and  conformable  to  historical  orthodoxy.  In  the 
explanation  of  this  doctrine  the  orthodox  have  often  differed. 
It  is  a  simple  fact  that  God  as  a  just  judge  condemned  the 
whole  race  on  account  of  Adam's  sin,  and  condemnation  by 
God,  the  source  of  life,  involves  and  is  justly  followed  by  spir- 
itual and  moral  death. 
23 


354  IMPUTATION   OF  ADAM'S    FIRST   SIN. 

10.  Where  is  the/act  asserted  in  Scripture  thai  God  condemned 
ilie  whole  race  because  of  Adams  apostasy  ? 

Rom.  v.  17-19. — "For  if  by  one  man's  offenco  death  reigned 
by  one;"  "Therefore,  as  by  the  offence  of  one  judgment  came 
upon  all  men  to  condemnation; "  "  For  as  by  one  man's  disobe- 
dience many  were  made  sinners." 

11.  Show  that  in  this  doctrine  the  whole  Church  has  concurred  ? 

The  sin  of  Adam  was  an  act  of  apostasy.  The  spiritual 
desertion  and  consequent  spiritual  corruption  which  immedi- 
ately occurred  in  his  personal  experience  (the  very  penalty 
threatened)  was,  of  course,  a  just  penal  consequence  of  that 
act.  Augustine  said  ("De  Nupt.  et  Concup."  II.  xxxiv.) — 
"  Nothing  remains  but  to  conclude  that  in  that  first  man  all  are 
understood  to  have  sinned,  because  all  were  in  him  when  he 
sinned ;  whereby  sin  is  brought  in  with  birth,  and  not  removed 
save  by  the  new  birth." 

Dr.  G.  F.  Wiggers,  the  learned  expounder  of  "  Augustinian - 
ism  and  Pelagianism,  from  the  Original  Sources,"  says  in  his 
statement  of  Augustine's  view  of  original  sin,  ch.  5,  division 
2,  §  2.  "The  propagation  of  Adam's  sin  among  his  posterity 
is  a  punishment  of  the  same  sin.  The  corruption  of  human 
nature,  in  the  whole  race,  was  the  righteous  punishment  of 
the  transgression  of  the  first  man,  in  whom  all  men  already 
existed." 

The  "Council  of  Trent,"  Sess.  v.,  1  and  2,  says  that  "sin 
which  is  the  death  of  the  soul "  was  part  of  that  penalty  which 
Adam  incurred  by  his  transgression,  and  whioh  is  therefore 
transmitted  to  his  descendants  as  well  as  inflicted  on  himself." 

Bellarmin,  "Amiss.  Grot."  iii.  1,  says,  "The  penalty  which 
properly  corresponds  with  the  first  sin  is  the  forfeiture  of  orig- 
inal righteousness  and  of  those  supernatural  gifts  with  which 
God  had  furnished  our  nature." 

Luther  (in  Genes.  1,  p.  98,  cap.  5,)  says,  that  the  image  of 
Adam  in  which  Seth  was  begotten  "  included  original  sin,  and 
the  penalty  of  eternal  death  inflicted  because  of  the  sin  of 
Adam." 

Melanchthon  ("Explicatio  Symboli  Niceni.  Corp.  Refor.," 
xxiii.  403  and  583)  says,  "Adam  and  Eve  merited  guilt  and 
depravity  for  their  descendants." 

"  Formula  Concordia?,"  p.  639  and  p.  643,  Hase  ed. — "  Espe- 
cially since  by  the  seduction  of  Satan,  through  the  fall,  by  the 
just  judgment  of  God  in  the  punishment  of  men,  concreated  or 
original  righteousness  was  lost  .  .  .  and  human  nature 
corrupted." 


THE    CONSENSUS    OF    THE    CHURCHES    SHOWN.  355 

"  Apol.  Aug.  Conf,"  p.  58.—"  In  Genesis  the  penalty  im- 
posed for  original  sin  is  described.  For  there  was  human 
nature  subjected  not  only  to  death  and  corporeal  evils,  but  also 
to  the  reign  of  the  devil.  .  .  .  Defect  and  concupiscence 
are  both  penal  evils  and  sins." 

Quenstedt  (fl688),  "Ques.  Theo.  Did.,"  Pol.  I.,  994— "It 
was  not  simply  of  the  good  pleasure  or  the  absolute  sovereignty 
of  God,  but  of  the  highest  justice  and  equity,  that  the  sin, 
which  Adam  as  the  root  and  origin  of  the  whole  human  race 
committed,  should  be  imputed  to  us,  and  propagated  in  us  so 
as  to  constitute  us  guilty." 

Both  the  Second  Heivetic,  Ch.  8,  and  the  Gallic  Confessions, 
Art.  9,  say  that  Adam,  "  by  his  own  fault  (culpa)  became  sub- 
ject to  sin,  and  such  as  he  became  after  the  fall,  such  are  all 
who  were  propagated  by  him,  they  being  subject  to  sin,  death, 
and  various  calamities." 

Peter  Martyr,  Professor  at  Zurich  (1500-1561),  as  quoted  by 
Turretin  (Loco  ix.,  2,  9,  §  43),  says,  "Assuredly  there  is  no  one 
who  can  doubt  that  original  sin  (inherent)  is  inflicted  upon  us 
in  revenge  and  punishment  of  the  first  fall." 

Calvin. — "  God  by  a  just  judgment  condemned  us  to  wrath 
in  Adam,  and  willed  us  to  be  born  corrupt  on  account  of 
his  sin." 

Ursinus  (1534-1583),  friend  of  Melanchthon,  professor  at 
Heidelberg  and  author  of  the  "Heidelberg  Catechism,"  says 
(Qusest.  7,  pp.  40,  41),  "original  sin"  (inherent)  "passes  over" 
to  their  descendants,  "  not  through  the  body,  nor  through  the 
soul,  but  through  the  impure  generation  of  the  whole  man,  on 
account  of  (propter)  the  guilt  of  our  first  parents,  on  account 
of  which,  God,  By  a  just  judgment,  while  he  creates  our  souls, 
at  the  same  time  deprives  them  of  the  original  rectitude  and 
gifts  which  he  had  conferred  upon  the  parents." 

L.  Danseus  (1530-1596). — "There  are  three  things  which 
constitute  a  man  guilty  before  God:  1.  The  sin  flowing  from 
this  that  we  have  all  sinned  in  the  first  man.  2.  Corruption, 
which  is  the  punishment  of  this  sin,  which  fell  upon  Adam 
and  upon  all  his  posterity.     3.  Actual  sins." 

Theodore  Beza  (1519-1605),  on  Romans  xii.,  etc.  —  "As 
Adam,  by  the  commission  of  sin,  first  was  made  guilty  of  the 
wrath  of  God,  then,  as  being  guilty,  underwent  as  the  punish- 
ment of  his  sin  the  corruption  of  soul  and  body,  so  also  he 
transmitted  to  posterity  a  nature  in  the  first  place  guilty,  next, 
corrupted." 

J.  Arminius,  of  Leyden  (1560-1609). — "Whatever  punish- 
ment, therefore,  was  inflicted  on  our  first  parents,  has  gone 
down  through  and  now  rests  on  all  their  posterity;  so  that 


35G  IMPUTATION   OF  ADAM'S   FIRST  SIN. 

all  are  children  of  wrath  by  nature,  being  obnoxious  to  con 
demnation  .  .  .  and  to  a  destitution  of  righteousness  and 
true  holiness,"  "are  destitute  of  original  righteousness,  which 
penalty  is  usually  called  a  loss  of  the  divine  image,  and  orig- 
inal sin." 

G.  J.  Vossius,  Leyden  (1577-1649),  "  Hist.  Pelag.,"  Lb.  ii., 
1. — 1.  "The  Catholic  Church  has  always  thus  decided,  that  the 
first  sin  is  imputed  to  all ;  that  is,  that  its  effects  are,  according 
to  the  just  judgment  of  God,  transmitted  to  all  the  children 
of  Adam  ...  on  account  whereof  we  are  born  without 
original  righteousness." 

Synod  of  Dort  (1618). — "Such  as  man  was  after  the  fall, 
such  children  also  he  begat,  ...  by  the  propagation  of  a 
vicious  nature,  by  the  just  judgment  of  God." 

Francis  Turretin,  Geneva  (1623-1687),  Locus  9,  Q.  9,  §§  6,  14. 

Amesius,  "Medulla  Theolog.,"  Lib.  prim.,  cap.  17. — "2.  This 
propagation  of  sin  consists  in  two  parts,  in  imputation  and  in 
oral  communication.  3.  By  imputation  that  single  act  of  disobe- 
dience which  Adam  committed  is  made  also  ours.  4.  By  real 
communication,  not  indeed  the  single  sin.  5.  Original  sin,  since 
it  essentially  consists  in  deprivation  of  original  righteousness, 
and  this  deprivation  follows  the  first  sin  as  a  penalty,  this  has 
in  the  first  instance  the  nature  of  a  penalty  rather  than  of  a 
sin.  Inasmuch  as  that  original  righteousness  is  denied  by  the 
justice  of  God,  so  far  forth  it  is  penalty;  inasmuch  as  it  ought 
to  be  present  and  is  absent  by  human  fault,  so  far  forth  it  is 
sin.  6.  Therefore  this  privation  is  handed  down  from  Adam 
after  the  manner  of  ill-desert  in  so  far  as  it  is  penalty,  and  after 
the  manner  of  real  efficiency  in  so  far  as  it  has  adjoined  to  it 
the  nature  of  sin." 

H.  Witsius  (1636-1708),  "  Economy,"  Bk.  L,  ch.  8,  §§  33 
and  34. — "  It  is  therefore  necessary  that  the  sin  of  Adam  in 
virtue  of  the  covenant  of  works,  be  so  laid  to  the  charge  of  his 
posterity,  who  were  comprised  with  him  in  the  same  covenant, 
that,  on  account  of  the  demerit  of  his  sin,  they  are  born  des- 
titute of  original  righteousness,"  etc. 

"Formula  Consensus  Helvetica"  (1675),  canon  x. — "But 
there  appears  no  way  in  which  hereditary  corruption  could 
fall,  as  spiritual  death,  upon  the  whole  human  race  by  the 
just  judgment  of  God,  unless  some  sin  of  that  race  preceded, 
incurring  the  penalty  of  that  death.  For  God,  the  supremely 
just  Judge  of  all  the  earth,  punishes  none  but  the  guilty." 

Westminster  "Conf.  and  Cat";  "  Conf.  Faith,"  ch.  vii.,  §  2 
and  ch.  vi.,  §  3;  "L.  Cat.,"  22  and  25;  "S.  Cat.,"  18. 

President  Witherspoon,  "Works,"  Vol.  IV.,  p.  96.  — "It 
seems  very  plain   that  the  state   of  corruption  and  wicked- 


IMPUTATION  DEFINED.  357 

uess  which  men  are  now  in,  is  stated  in  Scripture  as  being 
the  effect  and  punishment  of  Adam's  first  sin." 

See  also  the  truth  of  this  position  affirmed  by  Dr.  Tho. 
Chalmers,  "  Institutes  of  Theology,"  part  1,  ch.  6 ;  and  by  Dr. 
William  Cunningham;  "Theology  of  the  Reformation,"  Essay 
vii.,  §  2;  Dr.  James  Thorn  well,  "Collected  Writings,"  Vol.  I., 
pp.  479,  559,  561,  etc. ;  and  a  learned  article  by  Prof.  Geo.  P. 
Fisher,  of  New  Haven,  Theo.  Sem.,  in  the  "New  Englander," 
July,  1868. 

Thus  we  have  the  consensus  of  Catholic  and  Protestant, 
Lutheran  and  Reformed,  of  Supralapsarian  and  Infralapsarian, 
of  Gomar  and  Arminius,  of  the  Synod  of  Dort  and  the  West- 
minster Assembly,  of  Scotland  and  of  New  England. 

12.  Why  was  this  doctrine  expressed  technically  as  the  imputa- 
tion o/tJie  guilt  of  Adams  apostatizing  act?  and  state  the  meaning 
of  the  terms. 

At  the  Council  of  Trent  Albertus  Pighius  and  Ambrosius 
Catherinus  (F.  Paul's  "  Hist.  Con.  Trent,"  Lib.  ii.,  s.,  65)  main- 
tained that  the  imputed  guilt  of  Adam's  first  sin  constituted 
the  only  ground  of  the  condemnation  which  rests  upon  men  at 
birth.  The  Council  did  not  allow  this  heresy,  but  neverthe- 
less maintained  a  rather  negative  than  positive  view  of  man's 
inherent  guilty  corruption.  Consequently  Calvin  and  all  the 
first  Reformers  and  Creeds  were  principally  concerned  in  em- 
phasizing the  fact  that  original  sin  inherent,  as  distinguished 
from  original  sin  imputed,  is  intrinsically  and  justly,  as  moral 
corruption,  worthy  of  God's  wrath  and  curse.  It  is  the  reason 
why  the  salvation  of  infants  is  referred  to  the  sovereign  grace 
of  God,  and  the  expiatory  merits  of  Christ,  and  it  continues  in 
adults  the  source  of  all  actual  sin  and  the  main  ground  of 
condemnation  to  eternal  death.  Infants  and  adults  suffer,  and 
adults  are  damned  on  account  of  the  guilt  of  inherent  sin,  but 
never  on  account  of  Adam's  sin  imputed. 

But  when  the  question  is  asked  why  God,  either  directly 
or  indirectly,  brings  us  into  existence  thus  corrupt,  the  whole 
church  answered  as  above  shown,  because  God  has  thereby  justly 
punished  us  for  Adams  apostasy. 

This  is  technically  expressed  as  the  "  imputation  to  us  of 
the  guilt  of  Adam's  act." 

"Guilt"  is  just  liability  to  punishment.  The  recognition 
of  guilt  is  a  judicial  and  not  sovereign  act  of  God. 

"Imputation"  (the  Hebrew  2&n  and  the  Greek  Xoyi^onai 
frequently  occurring  and  translated  "to  count,"  "to  reckon,"  "to 
impute,"  etc.)  is  simply  to  lay  to  one's  charge  as  a  just  ground 
of  legal  procedure,  whether  the  thing  imputed  antecedently 


358  IMPUTATION   OF  ADAM'S   FIRST  SIN. 

belonged  to  the  person  to  whom  it  is  charged,  or  for  any  other 
adequate  reason  he  is  justly  responsible  for  it.  Thus  not  to  im- 
pute sin  to  the  doer  of  it,  is  of  course  graciously  to  refrain  from 
charging  the  guilt  of  his  own  act  or  state  upon  him  as  a  ground 
of  punishment;  while  to  impute  righteousness  without  works 
is  graciously  to  credit  the  believer  with  a  righteousness  which 
is  not  personally  his  own. — Rom.  iv.  6,  8;  2  Cor.  v.  19;  see 
Num.  xxx.  15;  xviii.  22-27,  30;  Lev.  v.  17,  18;  vii.  18;  xvi.  22; 
Rom.  ii.  26;  2  Tim.  iv.  16,  etc. 

The  imputation,  i.  e.,  judicial  charging  of  Adam's  sin  to  us, 
is  rather  to  be  considered  as  contemplating  the  race  as  a  whole, 
as  one  moral  body,  than  as  a  series  of  individuals.  The  race 
was  condemned  as  a  whole,  and  hence  each  individual  comes 
into  existence  in  a  state  of  just  antenatal  forfeiture.  Turretin 
calls  it  "commune  peccatum,  communis  citljoa"  L.  9,  Q.  9.  This 
and  this  alone  is  what  the  church  has  meant  by  this  doctrine. 
Afterwards  in  our  own  persons  God  condemns  us  only  and  most 
justly  because  of  our  inherent  moral  corruption  and  our  actual 
transgressions.  The  imputation  of  the  guilt  of  Adam's  aposta- 
tizing act  to  us  in  common  leads  judicially  to  spiritual  desertion 
in  particular,  and  spiritual  desertion  leads  by  necessary  conse- 
quence to  inherent  depravity.  The  imputation  of  our  sins  in 
common  to  Christ  leads  to  his  desertion  (Matt,  xxvii.  46),  but 
his  temporary  desertion  leads  to  no  tendency  to  inherent  sin, 
because  he  was  the  God-man.  The  imputation  of  Christ's  right- 
eousness to  us  is  the  condition  of  the  restoration  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  that  restoration  leads  by  necessary  consequence  to 
regeneration  and  sanctification.  "  It  is  only  when  justificatio 
forensis  maintains  its  Reformation  position  at  the  head  of  the 
process  of  salvation,  that  it  has  any  firm  or  secure  standing  at 
all."— Dr.  J.  A.  Dorner's  "  Hist.  Prot.  Theo.,"  Vol.  II.,  p.  160. 

13.  What  is  the  origin  of  the  Distinction  between  the  Mediate 
and  the  Immediate  Imputation  of  Adam's  sin,  and  ivhat  has  been 
tlve  usage  with  respect  to  those  terms  among  theologians  ? 

As  above  shown,  from  the  beginning,  the  universal  Church 
has  agreed  in  holding  that  the  guilt  of  Adam's  first  sin  was 
directly  charged  to  the  account  of  the  human  race  in  mass, 
just  as  it  was  charged  to  himself,  and  punished  in  the  race 
by  desertion  and  consequent  depravity,  just  as  it  was  punished 
in  him.  This  was  uniformly  expressed  by  the  technical  phrase, 
the  imputation  of  the  guilt  of  his  first  sin  to  his  descendants. 

In  the  first  half  of  the  seventeenth  century,  Joshua  Placaeus, 
professor  at  Saumur,  was  universally  understood  to  deny  any 
imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to  his  posterity,  and  to  admit  only 
inherent  innate  corruption  as  derived  from  Adam  by  natural 


MEDIATE    AND    IMMEDIATE    IMPUTATION.  359 

generation.  This  was  explicitly  condemned  by  the  French 
National  Synod  at  Charenton,  1645;  and  repudiated  by  all 
orthodox  theologians,  Lutheran  and  Reformed.  Placaeus  sub- 
sequently originated  the  distinction  between  Immediate  and 
Mediate  Imputation.  By  the  former  he  meant  the  direct  charg- 
ing of  the  guilt  of  Adam's  sin  antecedent  to  their  own  sinful 
state.  By  the  latter  he  meant  that  we  are  found  guilty  with 
Adam  of  his  apostasy  because  in  virtue  of  inherent  depravity 
we  are  apostates  also.  He  denied  the  former  and  admitted  the 
latter. 

It  is  obvious — 1st.  That  this  doctrine  of  mediate  imputation 
alone  is  virtually  the  "  New  England  Root  Theory,"  above  dis- 
cussed, which  refers  the  abandoning  of  the  human  race  to  the 
operation  of  the  natural  law  of  inheritance  to  the  sovereign 
will,  instead  of  to  the  just  judgment,  of  God. 

2d.  It  is  a  denial  of  the  universal  doctrine  of  the  Church 
that  Adam's  sin  is  justly  charged  to  his  descendants  as  to  him- 
self, and  punished  in  them  by  depravity  as  it  was  punished  in 
himself.  That  imputation  was  obviously,  whatever  its  ground, 
purely  immediate  and  antecedent. 

3d.  It  is  evident  that  Adam's  sin  can  not  at  the  same  time 
be  both  immediately  and  mediately  imputed  to  the  same  effect. 
It  would  be  absurd  to  think  that  mankind  are  judicially  pun- 
ished with  inherent  corruption  as  a  just  punishment  for  Adam's 
sin,  and  at  the  same  time  counted  guilty  of  Adam's  sin  because 
they  are  afflicted  with  that  punishment.  It  is  for  this  reason 
that  so  many  advocates  of  the  church  doctrine  of  immediate 
imputation  deny  that  imputation  can  in  any  sense  be  mediate. 

4th.  But  the  penalty  of  Adam's  sin  was  "  Death  " ;  that  is,  all 
penal  evils,  temporal,  and  eternal.  The  strongest  advocates  of 
immediate  imputation,  in  order  to  account  for  the  infliction  of 
innate  inherent  sin,  admit  that  all  tJie  other  elements  of  the  pen- 
alty denounced  upon  Adam  come  upon  us  because  of  our  own 
inherent  and  actual  sins. — See  Turretin,  L.  9,  Qua3s.  9,  §  14,  and 
"Princeton  Essays." 

5th.  The  immediate  imputation  of  the  guilt  of  Adam's  sin  is 
to  the  race  as  a  whole,  and  respects  each  individual  antecedently 
to  his  existence  as  a  judicial  cause  of  his  commencing  that  ex- 
istence in  a  depraved  condition.  When  each  single  man  is  con- 
sidered in  himself  personally  and  subsequent  to  birth,  all  agree 
that  he  is  condemned  with  Adam  because  of  a  common  inherent 
depravity  and  life. 

6th.  Many  found  difficulty  in  conceiving  how  inherited  in- 
herent corruption  can  be  guilt  as  well  as  pollution.  Their  idea 
was  that  a  sinful  state  must  originate  in  the  free  choice  of  the 
person  concerned,  in  order  to  invoke  the  moral  responsibility 


360  IMPUTATION   OF    ADAM'S   FIRST   SIN. 

implied  by  guilt.  Yet  all  acknowledge  that  inherent  corrup. 
tion  is  guilt.  Some  tacitly  accounted  for  this  on  the  principle 
of  Edwards,  that  "  the  essence  of  the  virtue  or  vice  of  disposi- 
tions of  the  heart  lies  not  in  their  cause,  but  in  their  nature." 
Others,  however,  held  that  the  guilt  inherent  in  innate  sin  is 
due  to  the  fact  that  this  sin  is  connected  as  an  effect  with  the 
apostasy  of  Adam.  If  the  question  then  be,  Why  the  race  is 
under  ban,  and  we  are  allowed  to  commence  our  moral  agency 
in  a  depraved  condition  ?  all  the  orthodox  answer  in  terms  or 
in  effect,  "  Because  of  the  most  just  immediate  imputation  of 
Adam's  first  sin." 

If  the  question  be,  Why  are  we  severally,  after  birth,  judged 
guilty  as  well  as  corrupt,  and  why  are  we  punished  with  all 
the  temporal  and  eternal  penal  evils  denounced  upon  Adam  ? 
many  of  the  orthodox  say,  "  Because  of  our  own  inherent  sin 
mediating  the  full  imputation  of  his  sin." 

Andrew  Quenstedt,  Wittenberg  (11688),  "Theo.  Did.  Pol.," 
I.,  998. — "The  first  sin  of  Adam  is  imputed  to  us  immediately 
inasmuch  as  we  exist  hitherto  in  Adam.  But  the  sin  of  Adam 
is  imputed  to  us  mediately  in  so  far  as  we  are  regarded  indi- 
vidually and  in  our  own  proper  persons." 

F.  Turretin,  Geneva  (fl687),  Locus  9,  Qusest.  9,  §  14. — "The 
penalty  which  sin  brings  upon  us  is  either  privative  or  posi- 
tive. The  former  is  the  want  or  privation  of  original  right- 
eousness. The  latter  is  death  both  temporal  and  eternal,  and 
in  general  all  evils  which  are  sent  upon  sinners.  .  .  .  With 
respect  to  the  former  we  say  that  the  sin  of  Adam  is  imputed 
to  us  immediately  to  the  effect  of  the  privative  penalty,  be- 
cause it  is  the  cause  of  the  privation  of  original  righteousness, 
and  so  ought  to  go  before  privation,  at  least  in  the  order  of 
nature;  but  as  to  the  latter,  the  positive  penalty  may  be  said 
to  be  mediately  imputed,  because  we  are  not  obnoxious  to 
that,  unless  after  we  are  born  and  corrupt." 

Hence — (1.)  All  in  effect  admit  immediate  imputation,  and 
deny  mediate  imputation  alone.  (2.)  Many  ignore  the  distinc- 
tion, which  never  emerged  till  the  time  of  Placaeus.  (3.)  A 
number,  in  the  senses  above  shown,  assert  both. 

14.  How  is  this  Doctrine  proved  by  the  analogy  which  Paul 
(Rom.  v.  12-21)  asserts  between  our  condemnation  in  Adam  and 
our  justification  in  Christ? 

"  Therefore  as  by  the  offence  of  one,  judgment  came  upon 
all  men  to  condemnation ;  even  so  by  the  righteousness  of  one 
the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men  unto  justification  of  life." 

The  analogy  here  asserted  is  as  to  the  fact  and  nature  of 
the  imputation  in  both  cases,  not  at  all  as  to  the  ground  of  it 


THE    GROUND    OF    THIS    IMPUTATION".  3G1 

Christ  is  one  with  his  elect  because  of  the  gracious  appointment 
of  the  Father  and  his  voluntary  assumption  of  their  nature. 
Adam  is  one  with  his  descendants  because  he  is  their  natural 
head,  and  because  of  the  gracious  appointment  of  God.  In 
these  respects  the  cases  differ.  But  the  cases  are  identical  in 
so  far  as  in  view  of  the  oneness  in  both  cases  subsisting,  we 
are  justly  charged  with  the  guilt  of  Adam's  first  sin  and  pun- 
ished therefor,  and  Christ  is  justly  charged  with  the  guilt  of 
our  "  many  offences  "  and  punished  therefor,  and  we  are  justly 
credited  with  the  merit  of  his  righteousness  and  accepted,  re- 
generated, and  saved  therefor. — See  above  Ques.  12. 

If  the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness  is  immediate  the 
imputation  of  Adam's  sin  must  be  the  same,  though  the  basis 
of  the  one  is  grace  it  is  no  less  just,  and  though  the  basis  of 
the  other  be  justice,  the  original  constitution  from  which  it 
originated  is  no  less  gracious. 

15.  How  have  orthodox  theologians  explained  the  ground/of  this 
universally  assumed  judicial  charging  of  the  guilt  of  Adam's  apos- 
tatising act  to  his  descendants  ? 

They  are  generally  agreed  that  the  race  is  justly  responsible 
for  the  judicial  consequences  of  that  act.  Beyond  this  the  ac- 
counts rendered  of  the  matter  have  been  different,  and  often 
vague. 

1st.  Augustine  conceived  of  the  race  as  essentially  one.  As 
far  as  Adam  is  considered  as  a  person  his  sin  was  his  own,  but 
as  far  as  the  entire  race  in  its  essential  undistributed,  unindi- 
vidualized  form  of  existence  was  in  him,  his  act  was  the  apos- 
tasy of  that  whole  race,  and  the  common  nature  being  both 
guilty  and  depraved  is  justly  distributed  to  each  individual  in 
that  condition  and  under  that  condemnation.  The  whole  race 
was  not  personally  nor  individually,  but  virtually  or  potentially, 
coexistent  and  coactive  in  him. — Dr.  Philip  Schaff  in  "  Lange 
on  Rom.,"  pp.  191-196;  Dr.  Geo.  P.  Fisher,  "New  Englander," 
July,  1860.  This  is  a  mode  of  thought  which  at  least  presup- 
poses Realism,  and  language  to  the  same  effect  became  tradi- 
tional in  the  church,  and  has  been  used  in  a  general  sense  by 
many,  who  were  in  no  degree  philosophical  realists,  when  treat- 
ing of  our  relation  to  Adam.  Forms  of  expression  originating 
in  this  view  have  lingered  among  theologians  who  have  ex- 
plicitly rejected  realism,  and  have  definitely  substituted  for  it 
a  different  explanation  of  the  facts.  The  whole  race  has  been 
considered  one  organically,  and  we  have  been  said  to  have 
been  in  Adam  as  branches  in  a  tree,  etc.  Such  renderings  of 
the  matter  have  continued  to  late  times,  and  been  commingled 
with  others  essentially  different,  as  that  of  representation,  etc 


362  IMPUTATION   OF  ADAM'S   FIRST   SIN. 

It  is,  however  unsatisfactory  as  an  explanation  of  guilt,  in  the 
highest  degree  orthodox,  both  because  of  the  number  and  high 
authority  of  the  writers  who  have  used  it,  and  because  it  im- 
plies the  highest  conceivable  ground  of  immediate  imputa- 
tion. The  apostatising  act  is  imputed  to  us,  as  it  is  imputed 
to  Adam,  "  because  we  were  guilty  coagents  with  him  in  that 
act."— Shedd's  "  Essays." 

2d.  The  Federal  View  presupposes  the  natural  relation. 
Adam  stands  before  God  in  Eden  a  free,  responsible,  fallible 
moral  agent,  with  an  animal  body  and  a  generative  nature. 
Without  a  miracle  his  children  must  be  carried  along  with  him 
in  his  destinies.  His  own  status  was  and  must  ever  continue 
according  to  bare  law  contingent  upon  free-will.  God,  there- 
fore, as  the  benevolent  and  righteous  guardian  of  the  interests 
of  all  moral  creatures,  graciously  constituted  him  the  federal 
head  and  representative  of  his  race  as  a  whole,  and  promised 
him  for  himself  and  for  all  eternal  life,  or  confirmed  holiness  and 
happiness,  on  condition  of  temporary  obedience  under  favora- 
ble conditions,  with  the  penalty  for  him  and  for  them  of  death, 
or  condemnation  and  desertion,  on  condition  of  disobedience. 
This  was  an  act  of  grace  to  him,  as  it  substituted  a  temporal 
for  an  eternal  probation.  It  was  no  less  an  act  of  grace  for  the 
race,  for  reasons  stated  below. 

This  "  Federal  Theology  "  was  developed  and  introduced  in 
all  its  fulness  of  detail  and  bearings  by  Coccejus  (1602-1669), 
Prof,  at  Franecker  and  Leyden.  It  was  regarded  as  eminently 
a  Scriptural  system,  supplanting  the  prevailing  scholasticism, 
and  destroying  forever  the  influence  of  supralapsarian  specula- 
tions, and  it  gradually  found  acceptance,  under  appropriate  mod- 
ifications, with  Lutherans  and  Arminians  as  well  as  Calvinists. 

Two  things  however  are  historically  certain — 1st.  That  the 
idea  of  a  covenant  with  Adam  including  his  descendants  had 
long  before  been  clearly  conceived  and  prominently  advanced. 
This  was  done  by  Catherinus  before  the  "  Council  of  Trent " 
(Father  Paul's  "Hist.  Council  Trent,"  pp.  175.  177),  and  by 
such  men  among  Protestants  as  Hyperius  (fl567),  Olevianua 
(circum.  1563),  and  Kaphael  Eglin  (Dorner's  "Hist,  Prot.  Theo.,'' 
Vol.  II.,  pp.  31-45). 

2d.  That  the  essential  ideas  of  federal  representation  were 
long  and  veiy  generally  prevalent  among  Protestant  theologi- 
ans from  the  beginning.  Dr.  Charles  P.  Krauth  says,  with  re- 
spect to  Lutheran  theology  as  a  whole,  "  The  reasons  assigned 
for  the  imputation  and  transmission  centre  in  the  representa- 
tive character  of  Adam  (and  Eve).  The  technicalities  of  the 
federal  idea  are  late  in  appearing,  but  the  essential  idea  itself 
comes  in  from  the  beginning  in  our  theology."     Melanchthon 


THE    AUGUSTINIAN    THEORY  EXAMINED.  363 

said,  "  Adam  and  Eve  merited  guilt  and  depravity  for  their  pos- 
terity, because  integrity  had  been  bestowed  on  our  first  parents, 
that  they  might  preserve  them  for  their  entire  posterity,  and 
in  this  trial  they  represented  the  whole  human  race." — "Expli- 
catio  Symboli  Niceni,  Corp.  Eefor.,"  xxiii.  403  and  583. 

Chemnitz  (1522-1586),  "Loci.Theo.,"  fol.  213,  214,  says, 
"  God  deposited  those  gifts  with  which  he  willed  to  adorn  human 
nature  with  Adam,  on  this  condition,  that  if  he  kept  them  for 
himself  he  should  keep  them  for  his  posterity;  but  if  he  lost 
them  and  depraved  himself,  he  should  beget  children  after  his 
own  likeness." — Hutter,  Wittenberg  (fl616),  Lb.  "  Chr.  Con. 
Expli.,"  90.  "Adam  represented  the  whole  human  race."  Thus 
also  James  Arminius  (fl609)  (Disp.  31,  Thes.  ix);  John  Owen 
(1616-1683)  ("Justification/' p.  286),  and  West  "Conf.  Faith," 
Ch.  vii.  §  2,  and  "L.  Cat.,"  22  (1646  and  1647). 

Hence  it  appears  that  when  theological  writers,  subsequent 
to  the  prevalence  of  the  realistic  philosophy,  explain  our  moral 
oneness  with  Adam  by  the  uninterpreted  general  phrases  "  that 
we  sinned  in  him  being  in  his  loins,"  or  "  he  being  our  Boot," 
they  are  not  to  be  understood  as  excluding  all  reference  to  rep- 
resentation, or  to  covenant  responsibility.  The  language  holds 
true  under  either  theory,  or  when  both  are  combined  in  one 
notion.  And  from  the  interchange  of  terms  it  is  certain  that 
very  often  both  theories  were  latent  under  a  common  general 
notion. 

16.  What  can  be  fairly  adduced  in  support  of  the  Augustinian 
mode  of  explaining  our  moral  oneness  icith  Adam  ? 

This  view  explains  our  moral  oneness  entirely  on  the  ground 
of  his  being  the  natural  head  and  root  of  the  race,  and  the  con- 
sequent physical  or  organic  oneness  of  the  whole  race  in  him. 

It  may  be  fairly  argued  in  behalf  of  this  view — 1st.  That  if 
it  can  be  proved  that  we  were  "guilty  coagents  with  Adam  in 
his  sin,"  the  highest  and  most  satisfactory  reason  possible  is 
assigned  for  the  righteous  immediate  imputation  of  the  guilt 
of  that  sin  to  us. 

2d.  The  analogy,  as  far  as  it  goes,  of  all  God's  providential 
dealings,  both  general  and  special,  with  mankind.  God's  cove- 
nants with  Noah,  Abraham,  and  David  embrace  the  children 
with  the  parents,  and  rest  upon  the  natural  relations  of  gen- 
erator and  generated.  The  constitutions  alike  of  the  Jewish 
and  Christian  Churches  provide  that  the  rights  of  infants  are 
predetermined  by  the  status  of  their  parents.  This  is,  of  course, 
determined  by  a  gracious  covenant,  yet  that  covenant  presup* 
poses  the  more  fundamental  and  general  natural  relation  of 
generation  and  education.     All  human  condition  and  charao 


3G4  IMPUTATION   OF  ADAM'S   FIRST   SIN. 

ter,  aside  from  any  supernatural  intervention,  is  determined  by 
historical  conditions.  Hugh  Miller  ("Testimony  of  the  Rocks") 
says,  as  a  Christian  scientist:  "It  is  a  fact  broad  and  palpable 
as  the  economy  of  nature,  that  .  .  .  lapsed  progenitors,  when 
cut  off  from  civilization  and  all  external  interference  of  a  mis- 
sionary character,  become  founders  of  a  lapsed  race.  The  in- 
iquities of  the  parents  are  visited  upon  their  children."  "  It  is 
one  of  the  inevitable  consequences  of  that  nature  of  man  which 
the  Creator  '  bound  fast  in  fate,'  while  he  left  free  his  will,  that 
the  free-will  of  the  parent  should  become  the  destiny  of  the 
child." 

17.  What  can  be  fairly  argued  against  the  sufficiency  of  this 
explanation  of  the  ground  of  the  immediate  imputation  of  the  guilt 
of  Adams  first  sin  ? 

1st.  Observe  (1)  that  the  Jewish  and  Christian  Churches,  to 
whom  the  second  commandment  (Ex.  xx.  5)  was  given,  and 
the  children  of  Noah,  Abraham,  and  David  were  embraced 
under  special  gracious  covenants.  (2.)  Observe  that  in  cases 
in  which  God  visits  the  iniquities  of  parents  upon  their  chil- 
dren in  natural  providence,  irrespective  of  any  special  cove- 
nant obligations,  God  is  acting  with  a  most  just  though  sov- 
ereign discretion  in  dealing  with  rebels  already  under  previous 
righteous  condemnation. 

2d.  When  the  Natural  Headship  of  Adam  is  referred  to  in 
general  terms,  and  we  are  said  to  have  been  in  him  as  a 
"Root,"  or  as  "branches  in  a  tree,"  the  notion  is  unsatisfactory, 
because  (1)  utterly  indefinite.  (2.)  Because  it  is,  as  far  as  it 
goes,  material  and  mechanical,  and  therefore  utterly  fails  to 
explain  moral  responsibility,  which  is  essentially  spiritual  and 
personal.  (3.)  Besides  this  notion  at  least  latently  assumes 
the  fallacy  that  the  laws  of  natural  development  are  either 
necessary  limits  of  divine  agency,  or  agents  independent  of 
him,  or  independent  concauses  with  him.  The  truth  simply 
being  that  the  constitution  of  nature  is  the  creature  and  in- 
strument of  God.  (4.)  This  theory  assigns  no  reason,  either 
on  the  ground  of  principle  or  analogy,  why  only  the  first  sin 
of  Adam,  and  not  all  the  subsequent  sins  of  all  ancestors,  is 
imputed  to  posterity  as  the  ground  of  parental  forfeiture. 

3d.  The  idea  of  a  non-personal  but  virtual  or  potential  co 
existence  and  coagency  (see  Dr.  W.  G.  T.  Shedd's  "Essays" 
and  "Hist.  Christ.  Doc,"  and  Dr.  Philip  Schaff's  "  Lange. 
Rom.,"  pp.  192-194)  as  the  sole  basis  of  just  moral  responsi- 
bility has  no  support  in  that  testimony  of  Consciousness,  which 
is  our  only  citadel  of  defence  from  materialism,  naturalism, 
and  pantheism.     Consciousness  gives  us  no  conception  of  sin 


THE    FEDERAL    THEORY   COMMENDED.  365 

but  as  a  state  or  an  act  of  a  free  personal  agent.  Even  if  im- 
personal, virtual,  potential,  moral  coagency  be  a  fact,  it  tran- 
scends both  consciousness  and  understanding,  and  being  dark 
itself  can  throw  no  light  upon  the  mysterious  facts  it  is  ad- 
duced to  explain  and  to  justify. 

4th.  When  the  attempt  is  made  to  expound  this  theory  in 
the  full  sense  of  realistic  philosophy  the  case  does  not  appear 
to  be  improved. 

(1.)  In  pure  realism  humanity  is  a  single,  generic,  spiritual 
substance  which  voluntarily  apostatized  and  corrupted  itself 
in  Adam.  Human  persons  are  the  individual  manifestations 
of  this  common  spirit  in  connection  with  separate  bodily  or- 
ganizations. But  —  (a.)  If  we  so  far  leave  consciousness  be- 
hind how  can  we  defend  ourselves  from  pantheism?  (6.)  How 
are  individual  spirits  justified  and  sanctified  while  the  general 
spirit  remains  corrupt  and  guilty?  (c.)  How  did  the  Logos  be- 
come incarnate?  (d.)  How,  finally,  will  part  of  this  spiritual 
substance  be  eternally  glorified,  while  another  part  is  eternally 
damned. 

(2.)  Dr.  Shedd  explains  that  the  generic  spiritual  substance 
which  sinned  has  since,  through  the  agency  of  Adam,  been  dis- 
tributed and  explicated  into  a  series  of  individuals.  But  can 
a  spirit  be  divided  and  its  parts  distributed,  each  part  an  agent 
as  the  whole  was  from  which  it  was  separated  ?  Is  not  this 
to  confound  the  attributes  of  spirit  and  matter,  and  to  explain 
spirit  as  material,  and  is  not  sin  pre-eminent' y  spiritual  and 
personal  ? 

18.  State  the  reasons  ivhich  establish  the  superior  satisfactory 
character  of  the  Federal  Theory  of  our  oneness  with  Adam  ? 

1st.  The  federal  headship  of  Adam  presupposes  and  rests 
upon  his  natural  headship.  He  was  our  natural  head  before 
he  was  our  federal  head.  He  was  doubtless  made  our  federal 
representative  because  he  was  our  natural  progenitor,  and  was 
so  conditioned  that  his  agency  must  affect  our  destinies,  and 
because  our  very  nature  was  on  trial  (typically  if  not  essen- 
tially) in  him.  Whatever,  therefore,  of  virtue  in  this  explana- 
tion the  natural  headship  of  Adam  may  be  supposed  to  contain 
the  federal  theory  retains. 

2d.  The  Covenant  as  shown  above  was  an  act  of  supreme 
divine  grace  to  Adam  himself.  It  was  still  more  so  as  it 
respects  his  descendants.  All  God's  moral  creatures  are  intro- 
duced into  existence  in  a  condition  of  real,  though  instable, 
moral  integrity.  This  is  obviously  true  of  men  and  angels, 
and  certainly  equitable.  They  must,  therefore,  pass  through  a 
probation  either  limited  or  unlimited.     Adam  was  under  condi- 


3GG  IMPUTATION   OF  ADAM'S   FIRST   SIN. 

tions  to  stand  that  graciously  limited  probation  with  every 
conceivable  advantage.  But,  apparently,  his  descendants  could 
have  no  fair  probation  except  in  his  person.  "Three  plans 
exhaust  the  possible.  (1.)  The  whole  race  might  have  been 
left  under  their  natural  relation  to  God  forever.  (2.)  Each 
might  have  been  left  to  stand  for  himself  under  a  gracious 
covenant  of  works.  (3.)  That  the  race  as  a  whole  should  stand 
for  a  limited  period  represented  in  its  natural  head.  The  first 
would  have  certainly  led  to  universal  sin.  The  second  is  the 
one  Pelagians  suppose  actual.  The  third  is  incomparably  the 
most  advantageous  for  the  whole."  Dr.  Robert  L.  Dabney's 
"  Syllabus."  The  separate  probation  of  nascent  souls  in  infant 
bodies  was  certainly  not  to  be  preferred. 

3d.  God  certainly  did  as  a  matter  of  fact  condition  Adam 
with  a  promhe  of  "  Life,"  and  the  alternative  of  "  Death,"  upon 
a  special  and  temporally  limited  probationary  test.  The  precise 
penalty  threatened  upon  him,  has  been  in  its  general  sense  and 
special  terms  (Gen.  ii.  17  and  iii.  16-19)  inflicted  upon  all  his 
posterity. 

4th.  This  view  also  is  confirmed  by  the  analogy  which  the 
Scriptures  assert  existed  between  the  imputation  of  Adam's  first 
sin  to  us,  and  the  imputation  of  our  sins  to  Christ,  and  of  his 
righteousness  to  us.  This,  of  course,  implies  necessarily  that 
the  race  is  one  with  Adam,  and  the  elect  one  with  Christ.  And 
the  analogy  certainly  is  the  more  complete  on  the  federal  view 
of  Adam's  union  with  the  race,  than  on  that  view  which  ignores 
it.  Both  the  Covenant  of  Grace  including  the  elect,  and  the 
Covenant  of  Works  including  the  race,  were  gracious.  Christ 
voluntarily  assumed  his  headship  out  of  love.  Adam  obediently 
assumed  his  out  of  interest  and  duty.  God  graciously  chose 
the  elect  out  of  love,  and  graciously  included  the  descendants 
of  Adam  in  his  representation  out  of  benevolence. 

Does  not  the  remaining  mystery  lose  itself  in  that  abyss 
which  is  opened  by  the  fact  of  the  permission  of  sin,  before  which 
all  schools  of  Theists  on  this  side  the  veil  must  bow  in  silence. 


CHAPTER    XXII. 


All  questions  concerned  with  the  general  subject  of  Redemption  will  fall  under  the 

heads  of — 
1st.  The  Plan  of  Redemption,  including  the  Covenant  of  Grace  and  eternal  Election, 

considered  above,  Ch.  XI. 
2d.  The  Person  and  Work  of  Christ  in  the  Accomplishment  of  Redemption. 
3d.  The  Application  and  Consummation  of  Redemption  by  the  agency  of  the  Holy 

Ghost,  together  with  the  Means  of  Grace  divinely  appointed  to  that  end. 

THE  COVENANT  OF  GRACE. 

It  is  evident. — 1st.  That  as  God  is  an  infinite,  eternal,  and 
immutable  intelligence  he  must  have  formed,  from  the  begin- 
ning, an  all-comprehensive  and  unchangeable  Plan  of  all  his 
works  in  time,  including  Creation,  Providence,  and  Eedemption. 

2d.  A  Plan  formed  by  and  intended  to  be  executed  in  its 
several  reciprocal  distributed  parts  by  Three  Persons,  as  Sender, 
and  Sent,  as  Principal  and  Mediator,  as  Executor  and  Applier, 
must  necessarily  possess  all  the  essential  attributes  of  an  eter- 
nal Covenant  between  those  Persons. 

3d.  Since  God  in  all  departments  of  his  moral  government 
treats  man  as  an  intelligent,  voluntary,  and  responsible  moral 
agent,  it  follows  that  the  execution  of  the  eternal  Plan  of 
Redemption  must  be  in  its  general  character  ethical  and  not 
magical,  must  proceed  by  the  revelation  of  truth,  and  the  influ- 
ences of  motives,  and  must  be  voluntarily  appropriated  by  the 
subject  as  an  offered  grace,  and  obeyed  as  an  enjoined  duty 
upon  pain  of  reprobation.  Hence  its  application  must  possess 
all  the  essential  attributes  of  a  Covenant  in  time  between  God 
and  his  people. 

1.  What  is  the  usage  of  the  ward  ma  in  the  Hebreiv  Scriptures  ? 

This  word  occurs  more  than  two  hundred  and  eighty  times 
in  the  Old  Testament,  and  is  in  our  translation  in  the  vast 
majority  of  instances  represented  by  the  English  word  "  Cove- 
nant," in  a  number  of  instances  by  the  word  "  League,"  Jos. 
ix.  15,  etc.,  and  once  each  by  the  words  "  Confederate,"  Gen 
xiv.  13,  and  "  Confederacy,"  Obad.  7. 


368  THE    COVENANT   OF   GRACE. 

It  is  used  to  express. — 1st.  A  natural  ordinance.  "  God's 
covenant  with  the  day,  the  night,"  etc. — Jer.  xxxiii.  20. 

2d.  A  covenant  of  one  man  with  another.  Jonathan  and 
David. — 1  Sam.  xviii.  3  and  ch.  xx.  David  and  Abner. — 2  Sam. 
iii.  13. 

3d.  The  covenant  of  God  with  Noah,  Gen.  vi.  18,  19,  as  to 
his  family ;  and  with  the  human  race  in  him,  Gen.  ix.  9.  The 
bow  was  "a  token  of  a  covenant." — Gen.  ix.  13. 

4th.  The  "Covenant  of  Grace"  with  Abraham,  Gen.  xvii.  2-7, 
which  Paul  calls  the  "gospel,"  Gal.  iii.  17.  Circumcision  was 
the  "token  of  this  covenant." — Gen.  xvii.  11;  comp.  Acts  vii.  8. 

5th.  The  same  covenant  as  formed  generally  with  Abraham, 
Isaac,  and  Jacob. — Ex.  ii.  24,  etc. 

6th.  The  same  covenant,  with  special  and  temporary  modifi- 
cations of  form,  constituting  the  National-Ecclesiastical  Cove- 
nant of  God  with  the  people  of  Israel.  The  law  of  this  Covenant 
on  its  legal  side  was  written  by  Moses  first  in  a  book  ("the 
book  of  the  covenant,"  Ex.  xxiv.  7),  and  then  upon  tables  of 
stone  ("  the  words  of  the  covenant,  the  ten  commandments,  Ex. 
xxxiv.  27,  28),  which  were  afterwards  deposited  in  a  golden 
chest,  "the  ark  of  the  covenant." — Num.  x.  33. 

7th.  The  covenant  with  Aaron  of  an  everlasting  priesthood. 
Num.  xxv.  12,  13. 

8th.  The  covenant  with  David. — Jer.  xxxiii.  21,  22;  Pa 
lxxxix.  3,  4. 

2.  What  is  the  New  Testament  usage  of  the  term  SiaB^urj? 

This  word  occurs  thirty- three  times  in  the  New  Testament, 
and  is  almost  uniformly  translated  covenant  when  it  refers  to 
the  dealings  of  God  with  his  ancient  church,  and  testament  when 
it  refers  to  his  dealings  with  his  church  under  the  gospel  dispen- 
sation. Its  fundamental  sense  is  that  of  disposition,  arrange- 
ment; in  the  classics  generally  that  specific  form  of  arrangement 
or  disposition  called  a  testament,  which  sense,  however,  it  prop- 
erly bears  in  but  one  passage  in  the  New  Testament,  viz.,  Heb. 
ix.  16,  17.  Although  it  is  never  used  to  designate  that  eternal 
Covenant  of  Grace  which  the  Father  made  with  the  Son  as  the 
second  Adam,  in  behalf  of  his  people,  yet  it  always  designates 
either  the  old  or  the  new  dispensation,  i.  e.,  mode  of  adminis- 
tration of  that  changeless  covenant,  or  some  special  covenant 
which  Christ  has  formed  witli  his  people  in  the  way  of  admin- 
istering the  Covenant  of  Grace,  e.  g.,  the  covenants  with  Abra- 
ham and  with  David. 

Thus  the  disposition  made  by  God  with  the  ancient  church 
through  Moses,  the  Old  contrasted  in  the  New  Testament  with 
the  New  StaOijHT]  (Gal.  iv.  24),  was  really  a  covenant,  both  civil 


DIFFERENT    VIEWS   HELD    BY   CALVINISTS.  ^69 

and  religious,  formed  between  Jehovah  and  the  Israelites,  yet 
alike  in  its  legal  element,  "  which  was  added  because  of  trans- 
gressions, till  the  seed  should  come  to  whom  the  promise  was 
made,"  and  in  its  symbolical  and  typical  element  teaching  of 
Christ,  it  was  in  a  higher  view  a  dispensation,  or  mode  of  ad- 
ministration of  the  Covenant  of  Grace.  So  also  the  present 
gospel  dispensation  introduced  by  Christ  assumes  the  form  of 
a  covenant  between  him  and  his  people,  including  many  gra- 
cious promises,  suspended  on  conditions,  yet  it  is  evidently  in 
its  highest  aspect  that  mode  of  administering  the  changeless 
Covenant  of  Grace,  which  is  called  the  "new  and  better  dispen- 
sation," in  contrast  with  the  comparatively  imperfect  "  old  and 
first  dispensation"  of  that  same  covenant. — See  2  Cor.  iii.  14; 
Heb.  viii.  6,  8,  9,  10;  ix.  15;  Gal.  iv.  24. 

The  present  dispensation  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace  by  our 
Saviour,  in  one  respect,  evidently  bears  a  near  analogy  to  a  will 
or  testamentary  disposition,  since  it  dispenses  blessings  which 
could  be  fully  enjoyed  only  after,  and  by  means  of  his  death. 
Consequently  Paul  uses  the  word  Sia^ni]  in  one  single  passage, 
to  designate  the  present  dispensation  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace 
in  this  interesting  aspect  of  it. — Heb.  ix.  16,  17.  Yet  since  the 
various  dispensations  of  that  eternal  covenant  are  always  else- 
where in  Scripture  represented  under  the  form  of  special  ad- 
ministrative covenants,  and  not  under  the  form  of  testaments, 
it  is  to  be  regretted  that  our  translators  have  so  frequently  ren- 
dered this  term  SiaBrju?},  by  the  specific  word  testament,  instead 
of  the  word  covenant,  or  by  the  more  general  word  dispensa- 
tion.— See  1  Cor.  iii.  6,  14;  Gal.  iii.  15;  Heb.  vii.  22;  xii.  24; 
xiii.  20. 

3.  What  are  the  three  views  as  to  the  parties  in  the  covenant  of 
grace  held  by  Calvinists? 

These  differences  do  not  in  the  least  involve  the  truth  of 
any  doctrine  taught  in  the  Scriptures,  but  concern  only  the 
form  in  which  that  truth  may  be  more  or  less  clearly  presented. 

1st.  The  first  view  regards  the  Covenant  of  Grace  as  mado 
by  God  with  elect  sinners.  God  promising  to  save  sinners  as 
such  on  the  condition  of  faith,  they,  when  converted,  promising 
faith  and  obedience.  Christ  in  this  view  is  not  one  of  the  par- 
ties to  the  covenant,  but  its  Mediator  in  behalf  of  his  elect,  and 
their  surety;  i.  e.,  he  guarantees  that  all  the  conditions  demanded 
of  them  shall  be  fulfilled  by  them  through  his  grace. 

2d.  The  second  view  supposes  two  covenants,  the  first,  called 

the  Covenant  of  Redemption,  formed  from  eternity  between  the 

Father  and  the  Son  as  parties.    The  Son  promising  to  obey  and 

sutler,  the  Father  promising  to  give  him  a  people  and  to  grant 

24 


370  THE    COVENANT   OF   GRACE. 

them  in  him  all  spiritual  blessings  and  eternal  life.  The  second, 
called  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  formed  by  God  with  the  elect  aa 
parties,  Christ  being  mediator  and  surety  in  behalf  of  his  people. 

3d.  As  there  are  two  Adams  set  forth  in  the  Scripture,  the 
one  representing  the  entire  race  in  an  economy  of  nature,  and 
the  other  representing  the  whole  body  of  the  elect  in  an  econ- 
omy of  grace,  it  appears  more  simple  to  regard  as  the  founda- 
tion of  all  God's  dealings  with  mankind,  of  whatever  class,  only 
the  two  great  contrasted  Covenants  of  works  and  of  grace.  The 
former  made  by  God  at  the  creation  of  the  world  with  Adam, 
as  the  federal  head  and  representative  of  all  his  posterity.  Of 
the  promises,  conditions,  penalty,  and  issue  of  that  Covenant  I 
have  spoken  under  a  former  head,  see  Chapter  XVII.  The  latter, 
or  Covenant  of  Grace,  formed  in  the  counsels  of  eternity  between 
the  Father  and  the  Son  as  contracting  parties,  the  Son  therein 
contracting  as  the  Second  Adam,  representing  all  his  people  as 
their  mediator  and  surety,  assuming  their  place  and  undertak- 
ing all  their  obligations,  under  the  unsatisfied  Covenant  of 
Works,  and  undertaking  to  apply  to  them  all  the  benefits  se- 
cured by  this  eternal  Covenant  of  Grace,  and  to  secure  the  per- 
formance upon  their  part  of  all  those  duties  which  are  involved 
therein.  Thus  in  one  aspect  this  Covenant  may  be  viewed  as 
contracted  with  the  head  for  the  salvation  of  the  members,  and 
in  another  as  contracted  with  the  members  in  their  head  and 
sponsor.  For  that  which  is  a  grace  from  God  is  a  duty  upon 
our  part,  as  St.  Augustine  prayed,  "Da  quod  jubes,  et  jubes  quod 
vis ; "  and  hence  results  this  complex  view  of  the  Covenant. 

As  embraced  under  one  or  other  of  these  two  great  Cove- 
nants of  works  or  of  grace,  every  man  in  the  world  stands  in 
God's  sight.  It  is  to  be  remembered,  however,  that  in  the  sev- 
eral dispensations,  or  modes  of  administration  of  the  eternal 
Covenant  of  Grace,  Christ  has  contracted  various  special  cove- 
nants with  his  people,  as  administrative  provisions  for  carrying 
out  the  engagements,  and  for  applying  to  them  the  benefits  ol 
his  covenant  with  the  Father.  Thus,  the  covenant  of  Jehovah 
(the  Second  Person,  see  above,  Chapter  IX.,  Question  14) 
with  Noah,  the  second  natural  head  of  the  human  family, 
Gen.  ix.  11,  15.  The  covenant  with  Abraham,  the  typical  be- 
liever, bearing  the  visible  sign  and  seal  of  circumcision,  and 
thus  founding  the  visible  church  as  an  aggregate  of  families. 
This  covenant  continues  to  be  the  charter  of  the  visible  church 
to  this  day,  the  sacraments  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper 
now  attached  to  it,  signifying  and  sealing  the  benefits  of  the 
Covenant  of  Grace,  to  wit,  eternal  life,  faith,  repentance,  obedi- 
ence, etc.,  on  God's  part,  as  matters  of  promise;  on  ours  as 
matters  of  duty,  i  e.,  so  far  as  they  are  to  be  performed  by 


DOCTRINE    PROVED.  371 

ourselves. — Compare  Gen.  xvii.  9-13,  with  Gal.  iii.  15-17.  The 
national  covenant  with  the  Jews,  then  constituting  the  visible 
church,  Ex.  xxxiv.  27.  The  covenant  with  David,  the  type  of 
Christ  as  Mediatorial  King,  2  Sam.  vii.  15,  16;  2  Chron.  vii.  18. 
The  universal  offers  of  the  gospel  during  the  present  dispensa- 
tion, also,  are  presented  in  the  form  of  a  covenant.  Salvation  is 
offered  to  all  on  the  condition  of  faith,  but  faith  is  God's  gift 
secured  for  and  promised  to  the  elect,  and  when  given  exercised 
by  them.  Every  believer,  when  brought  to  the  knowledge  of 
the  truth,  enters  into  a  covenant  with  his  Lord,  which  he  re- 
news in  all  acts  of  faith  and  prayer.  But  these  special  covenants 
all  and  several  are  provisions  for  the  administration  of  the  eter- 
nal Covenant  of  Grace,  and  are  designed  solely  to  convey  the 
benefits  therein  secured  to  those  to  whom  they  belong. 

For  the  statements  of  our  standards  upon  this  subject,  com 
pare  "Confession  of  Faith,"  chapter  vii.,  section  3,  with  "L. 
Cat,"  Questions  30-36. 

4.  Prove  from  the  Scriptures  that  a  "  Covenant  of  Grace"  was 
actually  formed  in  eternity  between  the  Divine  Persons,  in  which 
the  "Son"  represented  this  elect. 

1st.  As  shown  at  the  opening  of  this  chapter  such  a  Cove- 
nant is  virtually  implied  in  the  existence  of  an  eternal  Plan  of 
salvation  mutually  formed  by  and  to  be  executed  by  three 
Persons. 

2d.  That  Christ  represented  his  elect  in  that  Covenant  is 
necessarily  implied  in  the  doctrine  of  sovereign  personal  elec- 
tion to  grace  and  salvation.  Christ  says  of  his  sheep,  "  Thine 
they  were,  and  thou  gavest  them  me,"  and  "Those  whom  thou 
"  gavest  me  I  have  kept,"  etc. — John  xvii.  6,  12. 

3d.  The  Scriptures  declare  the  existence  of  the  promise  and 
conditions  of  such  a  Covenant,  and  present  them  in  connec- 
tion.— Isa.  liii.  10,  11. 

4th.  The  Scriptures  expressly  affirm  the  existence  of  such  a 
Covenant. — Isa.  xlii.  6;  Ps.  lxxxix.  3. 

5th.  Christ  makes  constant  reference  to  a  previous  commis- 
sion he  had  received  of  his  Father. — John  x.  18 ;  Luke  xxii.  29. 

6th.  Christ  claims  a  reward  which  had  been  conditioned 
upon  the  fulfillment  of  that  commission. — John  xvii.  4. 

7th.  Christ  constantly  asserts  that  his  people  and  his  ex- 

Sected  glory  are  given  to  him  as  a  reward  by  his  Father.— 
ohn  xvii  6,  9,  24;  Phil.  ii.  6-11. 

5.  Who  were  the  'parties  to  this  Covenant  of  Grace;  ivhat  wert 
its  promises  or  conditions  on  the  part  of  the  Father;  and  ivlmt  its 
conditions  on  tlve  part  of  the  Son  ? 


372  THE    COVENANT   OF   GRACE. 

1st.  The  contracting  parties  were  the  Father  representing 
the  entire  Godhead  in  its  indivisible  sovereignty;  and,  on  the 
other  hand,  God  the  Son,  as  Mediator,  representing  all  his  elect 
people,  and  as  administrator  of  the  Covenant,  standing  their 
surety  for  their  performance  of  all  those  duties  which  were 
involved  on  their  part. 

2d.  The  conditions  upon  the  part  of  the  Father  were,  (1)  all 
needful  preparation,  Heb.  x.  5;  Isa.  xlii.  1-7;  (2)  support  in 
his  work,  Luke  xxii.  43 ;  (3)  a  glorious  reward,  first  in  the 
exaltation  of  his  theanthropic  person  "  above  every  name  that 
is  named,"  Phil.  ii.  6-11,  and  the  universal  dominion  committed 
to  him  as  Mediator,  John  v.  22 ;  Ps.  ex.  1 ;  and  in  committing 
to  his  hand  the  administration  of  all  the  provisions  of  the  Cov- 
enant of  Grace  in  behalf  of  all  his  people,  Matt,  xxviii.  18; 
John  i.  12;  xvii.  2;  vii.  39;  Acts  ii.  33;  and,  secondly,  in  the 
salvation  of  all  those  for  whom  he  acted,  including  the  provi- 
sions of  regeneration,  justification,  sanctification,  perseverance, 
and  glory — Titus  i.  2 ;  Jer.  xxxi.  33 ;  xxxii.  40 ;  Isa.  xxxv.  10 ; 
liii.  10,  11  j  Dicks'  "Theo.  Lect.,"  Vol.  I.,  pp.  506-509. 

3d.  The  conditions  upon  the  part  of  the  Son  were — (1.)  That 
he  should  become  incarnate,  made  of  a  woman,  made  under 
the  law. — Gal.  iv.  4,  5.  (2.)  That  he  should  assume  and  fully 
discharge,  in  behalf  of  his  elect,  all  violated  conditions  and 
incurred  liabilities  of  the  covenant  of  works,  Matt.  v.  17,  18, 
which  he  was  to  accomplish,  first,  by  rendering  to  the  precept  of 
the  law  a  perfect  obedience,  Ps.  xl.  8;  Isa.  xlii.  21;  John  ix.  4,  5; 
viii.  29;  Matt.  xix.  17;  and,  secondly,  in  suffering  the  full  penalty 
incurred  by  the  sins  of  his  people. — Isa.  liii. ;  2  Cor.  v.  21 ;  Gal. 
iii.  13;  Eph.  v.  2. 

6.  In  what  sense  is  Christ  said  to  be  the  mediator  of  the  Cove- 
nant of  Grace? 

Christ  is  the  mediator  of  the  eternal  Covenant  of  Grace  be- 
cause— 1st.  As  the  one  mediator  between  God  and  man,  he  con- 
tracted it.  2d.  As  mediator,  he  fulfils  all  its  conditions  in  behalf 
of  his  people.  3d.  As  mediator  he  administers  it  and  dispenses 
all  its  blessings.  4th.  In  all  this,  Christ  was  not  a  mere  media- 
torial internuntius,  as  Moses  is  called  (Gal.  iii.  19),  but  he 
was  mediator  (1)  plenipotentiary  (Matt,  xxviii.  18),  and  (2) 
as  high  priest  actually  effecting  reconciliation  by  sacrifice 
(Rom.  iii.  25).  5th.  The  phrase  nedirrji  SiaBrj^i  mediator  of  the 
covenant,  is  applied  to  Christ  three  times  in  the  New  Testament 
(Heb.  viii.  6;  ix.  15;  xii.  24);  but  as  in  each  case  the  term  for 
covenant  is  qualified  by  either  the  adjective  "new"  or  "better, " 
it  evidently  here  is  used  to  designate  not  the  Covenant  of 
Grace  properly,  but  that  new  dispensation  of  that  eternal  cove- 


CHRIST   THE   MEDIATOR   AND    THE    SURETY.  373 

nant  which  Christ  introduced  in  person  in  contrast  to  the  less 
perfect  administration  of  it  which  was  instrumentally  introduced 
by  Moses.  In  the  general  administration  of  the  Covenant  of 
Grace,  Christ  has  acted  as  sacerdotal  mediator  from  the  foun- 
dation of  the  world  (Rev.  xiii.  8).  On  the  other  hand,  the  first 
or  "old  dispensation,"  or  special  mode  of  administering  that 
Covenant  visibly  among  men,  was  instrumentally,  and  as  to 
visible  form,  "  ordained  by  angels  in  the  hand  of  a  mediator," 
t.  c,  Moses  (Gal.  iii.  19).  It  is  precisely  in  contradistinction  to 
this  relation  which  Moses  sustained  to  the  outward  revelation 
of  those  symbolical  and  typical  institutions,  through  which  the 
Covenant  of  Grace  was  then  administered,  that  the  superior 
excellence  of  the  "  new  "  and  "  better  "  dispensation  is  declared 
to  consist  in  this,  that  now  Christ  the  "  Son  in  his  own  house" 
visibly  discloses  himself  as  the  true  mediator  in  the  spiritual 
and  personal  administration  of  his  covenant.  Hence  he  who 
from  the  beginning  was  the  "  one  mediator  between  God  and 
man"  (1  Tim.  ii.  5)  now  is  revealed  as  in  way  of  eminence,  the 
mediator  and  surety  of  that  eternal  Covenant  under  the  "new" 
and  "better"  dispensation  of  it,  since  now  he  is  rendered  visible 
in  the  fulness  of  his  spiritual  graces,  as  the  immediate  admin- 
istrator thereof,  whereas  under  the  "first"  and  "old"  dispen- 
sation he  was  hidden. — See  Sampson's  Com.  on  Hebrews." 
5th.  As  Mediator  also  Christ  undertakes  to  give  His  people 
faith  and  repentance  and  every  grace,  and  guarantees  for  them 
that  they  shall  on  their  part  exercise  faith  and  repentance  and 
every  duty. 

7.  In  what  sense  is  Christ  said  to  he  Surety  of  the  Covenant  of 
Grace? 

In  the  only  instance  in  which  the  term  surety  is  applied  to 
Christ  in  the  New  Testament  (Heb.  vii.  22),  "surety  of  a  better 
testament,"  the  word  translated  testament  evidently  is  designed 
to  designate  the  new  dispensation  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  as 
contrasted  with  the  old.  Paul  is  contrasting  the  priesthood  of 
Christ  with  the  Levitical.  He  is  priest  or  surety  after  a  higher 
order,  under  a  clearer  revelation,  and  a  more  real  and  direct 
administration  of  grace,  than  were  the  typical  priests  descended 
from  Aaron.  Christ  is  our  surety  at  once  as  priest  and  as  king. 
As  priest  because,  as  such,  he  assumes  and  discharges  all  our 
obligations  under  the  broken  covenant  of  works.  As  king  (the 
two  in  him  are  inseparable,  he  is  always  a  royal  priest),  because, 
as  such,  he  administers  the  blessings  of  his  covenant  to  hia 
people,  and  to  this  end  entering  into  covenants  with  them, 
offering  them  grace  upon  the  condition  of  faith  and  obedience, 


374  THE    COVENANT   OF   GRACE. 

and  then,  as  their  surety,  giving  them  the  graces  of  faith  and 
obedience,  that  they  may  fulfil  their  part. 

8.  What  general  method  has  characterized  Christ's  adminis- 
tration of  his  covenant  under  aU  dispensations  ? 

The  purchased  benefits  of  the  covenant  are  placed  in  Christ's 
hand,  to  be  bestowed  upon  his  people  as  free  and  sovereign  gifts. 
From  Christ  to  us  they  are  all  gifts,  but  from  us  to  Christ  many 
of  them  are  duties.  Thus,  in  the  administration  of  the  Covenant 
of  Grace,  many  of  these  purchased  blessings,  which  are  to  take 
effect  in  our  acts,  e.  g.,  faith,  etc.,  he  demands  of  us  as  duties, 
and  promises  other  benefits  as  a  reward  conditioned  on  our 
obedience.  Thus,  so  to  speak,  he  rewards  grace  with  grace,  and 
conditions  grace  upon  grace.  Promising  faith  to  his  elect,  then 
working  faith  in  them,  then  rewarding  them  for  its  exercise 
with  peace  of  conscience,  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  eternal 
life,  etc.,  etc. 

9.  What  is  the  Arminian  view  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace  ? 

They  hold,  1st,  as  to  the  parties  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace, 
that  God  offers  it  to  all  men,  and  that  he  actually  contracts  it 
with  all  believers.  2d.  As  to  its  promises,  that  they  include  all 
the  temporal  and  eternal  benefits  of  Christ's  redemption.  3d.  As 
to  its  conditions,  that  God  now  graciously  accepts  faith  and 
evangelical  obedience  for  righteousness,  in  the  place  of  that 
perfect  legal  obedience  he  demanded  of  man  under  the  cove- 
nant of  works,  the  meritorious  work  of  Christ  making  it  consist 
ent  with  the  principles  of  divine  justice  for  him  so  to  do.  They 
regard  all  men  as  rendered  by  sufficient  grace  capable  of  fulfil- 
ling such  conditions,  if  they  will. 

10.  In  what  sense  can  faith  be  called  a  condition  of  salvation  ? 

Faith  is  a  condition  sine  qua  non  of  salvation,  i.  e.,  no  adult 
man  can  be  saved  if  he  does  not  believe,  and  every  man  that 
does  believe  shall  be  saved.  It  is,  however,  a  gift  of  God  and 
the  first  part  or  stage  of  salvation.  Viewed  on  God's  side  it  is 
the  beginning  and  index  of  his  saving  work  in  us.  Viewed  on 
our  side  it  is  our  duty,  and  must  be  our  own  act.  It  is,  there- 
fore, as  our  act,  the  instrument  of  our  union  with  Christ,  and 
thus  the  necessary  antecedent,  though  never  the  meritorious 
cause,  of  the  gracious  salvation  which  follows.  Faith  as  the 
condition  is  of  course  living  faith,  which  necessarily  brings 
forth  "confession"  and  obedience. 

11.  What  are  tJie  promises  ivhich  Christ,  as  the  administrator 
of  the  covenant  of  grace,  makes  to  all  those  who  believe? 


THE    HISTORY   OF    THE    COVENANT.  375 

The  promise  to  Abraham  to  be  a  "  God  to  him  and  to  his 
seed  after  him"  (Gen  xvii.  7)  embraces  all  others.  All  things 
alike,  physical  and  moral,  in  providence  and  grace,  for  time  and 
eternity,  are  to  work  together  for  our  good.  "All  are  yours, 
and  ye  are  Christ's,  and  Christ  is  God's." — 1  Cor.  iii.  22,  23. 

This  gospel  covenant  is  often  called  the  "  Covenant  of 
Grace"  as  distinguished  from  the  "Covenant  of  Redemption." 
See  above,  Q.  3,  §  2.  "  fie  that  believeth  and  is  baptized 
shall  be  saved,  but  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned." 
Mark  xvi.  16. 

12.  Prove  that  Christ  was  mediator  of  men  be/ore  as  weU  as 
after  his  advent  in  the  flesh 

1st.  As  mediator  he  is  both  priest  and  sacrifice,  and  as  such 
it  is  affirmed  that  he  is  the  "Lamb  slain  from  the  foundation 
of  the  world,"  and  a  "  propitiation  for  the  sins  that  are  past " 
Rev.  xiii.  8;  Rom.  iii.  25;  Heb.  ix.  15. 

2d.  He  was  promised  to  Adam. — Gen.  iii.  15. 

3d.  In  the  3d  chapter  of  Gal.  Paul  proves  that  the  promise 
made  to  Abraham  (Gen.  xvii.  7 ;  xxii.  18)  is  the  very  same  gos- 
pel that  the  apostle  himself  preached.  Thus  Abraham  became 
the  father  of  those  that  believe. 

4th.  Acts  "x.  43. — "To  him  give  all  the  prophets  witness,  that 
through  his  name,  whosoever  believeth  on  him  shall  receive 
remission  of  sin." — See  53d  chap,  of  Is.,  also  chap.  xlii.  6. 

5th.  The  ceremonial  institutions  of  Moses  were  symbolical 
and  typical  of  Christ's  work;  as  symbols  they  signified  Christ's 
merit  and  grace  to  the  ancient  worshipper  for  his  present  sal- 
vation, while  as  types  they  prophesied  the  substance  which 
was  to  come. — Heb.  x.  1-10;  Col.  ii.  17. 

6th.  Christ  was  the  Jehovah  of  the  old  dispensation. — See 
above,  Chap.  IX.,  Question  14. 

13.  Prove  that  faith  ivas  the  condition  of  salvation  before  the 
advent  of  Christ,  in  the  same  sense  that  it  is  now. 

1st.  This  is  affirmed  in  the  Old  Testament. — Hab.  ii.  4; 
Ps.  ii.  12. 

2d.  The  New  Testament  writers  illustrate  their  doctrine  of 
justification  by  faith  by  the  examples  of  Old  Testament  be- 
lievers.— See  Rom.  iv.,  and  Heb.  xi. 

14.  Show  that  Christ,  as  administrator  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace, 
gave  to  tlie  members  of  the  Old  Testament  Church  precisely  the  same 
promises  that  he  does  to  us. 

1st.  The  promises  given  to  Christ's  ancient  people  clearly 
embrace  all  spiritual  and  eternal  blessings,  e.  g.,  the  promise 


376  THE    COVENANT   OF    GRACE. 

• 
given  to  Abraham,  Gen.  xvii.  7,  as  expounded  by  Christ,  Matt. 
xxii.  32,  and  the  promise  given  to  Abraham,  Gen.  xxii.  18; 
xii.  3,  as  expounded  by  Paul,  Gal.  iii.  16;  see  also  Is.  xliii.  25; 
Ezek.  xxxvi.  27;  Dan.  xii.  2,  3. 

2d.  This  is  plain  also  from  the  expectation  and  prayers 
of  God's  people.  —  51st  Ps.  and  16th  Ps. ;  Job  xix.  24-27; 
Ps.  lxxiii.  24-26. 

15.  How  was  the  covenant  of  grace  administered  from  Adam  to 
Abraham  ? 

1st.  By  promise. — Gen.  iii.  15. 

2d.  By  means  of  typical  sacrifices  instituted  in  the  family 
oi  Adam. 

3d.  By  means  of  immediate  revelations  and  appearances 
of  the  Jehovah,  or  divine  mediator  to  his  people.  Thus  "the 
Lord"  is  represented  throughout  the  first  eleven  chapters  of 
Genesis  as  "speaking"  to  men.  That  these  promises  and  sac- 
rifices were  then  understood  in  their  true  spiritual  intent  is 
proved  by  Paul. — Heb.  xi.  4-7.  And  that  this  administration 
of  the  covenant  of  grace  reached  many  of  the  people  of  the 
earth,  during  this  era,  is  proved  by  the  history  of  Job  in  Arabia, 
of  Abraham  in  Mesopotamia,  and  of  Melchisedec  in  Canaan. 

16.  How  was  it  administered  from  Abraham  to  Moses? 

1st.  The  promise  given  during  the  preceding  period  (Gen. 
iii.  15),  is  now  renewed  in  the  form  of  a  more  definite  cove- 
nant, revealing  the  coming  Saviour  as  in  the  line  of  Abraham's 
posterity  through  Isaac,  and  the  interest  of  the  whole  world 
in  his  salvation  is  more  fully  set  forth. — Gen.  xvii.  7;  xxii.  18. 
This  was  the  gospel  preached  beforehand. — Gal.  iii.  8. 

2d.  Sacrifices  were  continued  as  before. 

3d.  The  church,  or  company  of  believers,  which  existed  from 
the  beginning  in  its  individual  members,  was  now  formed  into 
a  general  body  as  an  aggregate  of  families,  by  the  institution 
of  circumcision,  as  a  visible  symbol  of  the  benefits  of  the  cove- 
nant of  grace,  and  as  a  badge  of  church  membership. 

17.  What  was  the  true  nature  of  Hue  covenant  made  by  God  with 
the  Israelites  through  Moses? 

It  may  be  regarded  in  three  aspects — 

1st.  As  a  national  and  political  covenant,  whereby,  in  a 
political  sense,  they  became  his  people,  under  his  theocratical 
government,  and  in  this  peculiar  sense  he  became  their  God. 
The  church  and  the  state  were  identical.  In  one  aspect  the 
whole  system  had  reference  to  this  relation. 

2d.  It  was  in  one  aspect  a  legal  covenant,  because  the  moral 


THE    HISTORY   OF    THE    COVENANT.  377 

law,  obedience  to  which  was  the  condition  of  the  covenant  of 
works,  was  prominently  set  forth,  and  conformity  to  this  law 
was  made  the  condition  of  God's  favor,  and  of  all  national 
blessings.  Even  the  ceremonial  system  in  its  merely  literal, 
and  apart  from  its  symbolical  aspect,  was  also  a  rule  of  works, 
for  cursed  was  he  that  confirmeth  not  all  the  words  of  this  law 
to  do  them. — Deut.  xxvii.  26. 

3d.  But  in  the  symbolical  and  typical  significance  of  all  the 
Mosaic  institutions,  they  were  a  clearer  and  fuller  revelation 
of  the  provisions  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace  than  had  ever  be- 
fore been  made.  This  Paul  abundantly  proves  throughout  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. — Hodge  on  Romans. 

18.  What  are  the  characteristic  differences  betiveen  the  dispensa- 
tion of  the  Covenant  of  Grace  under  the  law  of  Moses  and  after  tlue 
advent  of  Gltrist  ? 

These  differences,  of  course,  relate  only  to  the  mode  of  ad- 
ministration, and  not  to  the  matter  of  the  truth  revealed,  nor 
of  the  grace  administered.  1st.  The  truth  was  then  signified 
by  symbols,  which,  at  the  same  time,  were  types  of  the  real 
atonement  for  sin  afterwards  to  be  made.  Now  the  truth  is 
revealed  in  the  plain  gospel  history.  2d.  That  revelation  was 
less  full  as  well  as  less  clear.  3d.  It  was  so  encumbered  with 
ceremonies  as  to  be  comparatively  a  carnal  dispensation.  The 
present  dispensation  is  spiritual.  4th.  It  was  confined  to  one 
people.  The  present  dispensation,  disembarrassed  from  all  na- 
tional organizations,  embraces  the  whole  earth.  5th.  The  for- 
mer method  of  administration  was  evidently  preparatory  to  the 
present,  which  is  final. 

For  the  Calvinistic  view  of  the  "Covenant  of  Grace,"  see 
Turretin,  "Inst.  Theo.  Elench.,"  Loc.  12. ;  Witsius,  "iEcon.  of  the 
Govs."  For  Arminian  view  see  Fletcher's  works  and  Richard 
Watson's  "  Inst,  of  Theo." 


CHAPTER    XXIII. 

THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST. 

1.  How  can  it  be  proved  tJiat  the  promised  Messiah  of  the  Jewish 
Scriptures  has  already  come,  and  that  Jesus  Christ  is  that  person  ? 

We  prove  that  he  must  have  already  come  by  showing  that 
the  conditions  of  time  and  circumstances,  which  the  propheta 
declare  should  mark  his  advent,  are  no  longer  possible.  We 
prove,  secondly,  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  that  person  by 
showing  that  every  one  of  those  conditions  was  fulfilled  in  him. 

2.  Prove  that  Gen.  xlix.  10,  refers  to  the  Messiah,  and  slioio  how 
U  proves  that  the  Messiah  must  have  already  come. 

The  original  word  translated  shiloh,  signifies  peace,  and  is 
applied  to  the  Messiah. — Compare  Micah  v.  2,  5,  with  Matt, 
ii.  6.  Besides,  it  is  only  to  the  Messiah  that  the  gathering  of 
the  nations  is  to  be. — See  Isa.  lv.  5 ;  lx.  3 ;  Hag.  ii.  7.  The  Jews, 
moreover,  have  always  understood  this  passage  as  referring  to 
the  Messiah. 

Up  to  the  time  of  the  birth  of  Jesus  Christ  the  sceptre  and 
the  lawgiver  did  remain  with  Judah;  but  seventy  years  after 
his  birth,  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  they  finally  departed. 
If  the  advent  of  the  Messiah  had  not  occurred  previously  this 
prophecy  is  false. 

3.  Do  the  same  with  reference  to  thepropJiecy  of  Dan.  ix.  24-27. 

This  prophecy  refers  expressly  to  the  Messiah,  and  to  his 
peculiar  and  exclusive  work.  That  the  seventy  weeks  here 
mentioned  are  to  be  interpreted  weeks  of  years  is  certain,  1st, 
from  the  fact  that  it  was  the  Jewish  custom  so  to  divide  time ; 
2d,  from  the  fact  that  this  was  precisely  the  common  usage  of 
the  prophetical  books,  see  Ezek.  iv.  6;  Rev.  xii.  6;  xiii.  5;  3d, 
from  the  fact  that  the  literal  application  of  the  language  as 
seventy  common  weeks  is  impracticable. 

The  prophecy  is,  that  seven  weeks  of  years,  or  forty -nine 
years  from  the  end  of  the  captivity,  the  city  would  be  rebuilt 


THE    OLD    TESTAMENT  PROPHECIES   FULFILLED.       379 

That  sixty -two  weeks  of  years,  or  four  hundred  and  thirty-four 
years  after  the  rebuilding  of  the  city,  the  Messiah  should  ap- 
pear, and  that  during  the  period  of  one  week  of  years  he  should 
confirm  the  covenant,  and  in  the  midst  of  the  week  be  cut  off. 
There  is  some  doubt  as  to  the  precise  date  from  which  the 
calculation  ought  to  commence.  The  greatest  difference,  how- 
ever, is  only  ten  years,  and  the  most  probable  date  causes  the 
prophecy  to  coincide  precisely  with  the  history  of  Jesus  Christ. 

4.  What  prophecies,  relating  to  the  time,  place,  and  circum- 
stances of  the  birth  of  the  Messiah,  have  beenfulfilled  in  Jesus  of 
Nazareth? 

As  to  time,  it  was  predicted  that  he  should  come  before  the 
sceptre  departed  from  Judah  (Gen.  xlix.  10),  at  the  end  of  four 
hundred  and  ninety  years  after  the  going  forth  of  the  command 
to  rebuild  Jerusalem,  and  while  the  second  temple  was  still 
standing. — Hag.  ii.  9;  Mai.  iii.  1. 

As  to  place  and  circumstances,  he  was  to  be  born  in  Bethle 
hem  (Micah  v.  2),  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  of  the  family  of  David. 
Jer.  xxiii.  5,  6.  He  was  to  be  born  of  a  virgin,  Isa.  vii.  14; 
and  to  be  preceded  by  a  forerunner. — Mai.  iii.  1.  All  these 
met  in  Jesus  Christ,  and  can  never  again  be  fulfilled  in  another, 
since  the  genealogies  of  tribes  and  families  have  been  lost. 

5.  What  remarkable  characteristics  of  the  Blessiah,  as  described 
in  the  Old  Testament,  were  verified  in  our  Saviour  ? 

He  was  to  be  a  king  and  conqueror  of  universal  empire,  Ps. 
ii.  6  and  Ps.  xlv. ;  Isa.  ix.  6,  7 ;  and  yet  despised  and  rejected,  a 
man  of  sorrow,  a  prisoner,  pouring  forth  his  soul  unto  death. 
Isa.  liii.  He  was  to  be  a  light  to  lighten  the  Gentiles,  and 
under  his  administration  the  moral  condition  of  the  whole  earth 
was  to  be  changed. — Isa.  xlii.  6;  xlix.  6;  lx.  1-7.  His  death 
was  to  be  vicarious. — Isa.  liii.  5,  9,  12.  He  was  to  enter  the 
city  riding  upon  an  ass. — Zech.  ix.  9.  He  was  to  be  sold  for 
thirty  pieces  of  silver,  and  his  price  purchase  a  potter's  field. 
Zech.  xi.  12,  13.  His  garments  were  to  be  parted  by  lot. — Ps. 
xxii.  18.  They  were  to  give  him  vinegar  to  drink. — Ps.  lxix.  21. 
The  very  words  he  was  to  utter  on  the  cross  are  predicted,  Ps. 
xxii.  1 ;  also  that  he  should  be  pierced,  Zech.  xii.  10 ;  and  make 
his  grave  with  the  wicked  and  with  the  rich,  Isa.  liii.  9. — See 
Dr.  Alexander's  "  Evidences  of  Christianity." 

6.  What  peculiar  ivorJc  was  the  Messiah  to  accomplish,  ivhich 
has  been  performed  by  Christ  ? 

All  his  mediatorial  offices  were  predicted  in  substance.  He 
was  to  do  the  work  of  a  prophet  (Is.  xlii.  6;  lx.  3),  and  that  of 


380  THE    PERSON   OF   CHRIST. 

a  priest  (Is.  liii.  10),  to  make  reconciliation  for  sin  (Dan.  ix  24). 
As  king,  he  was  to  administer  the  several  dispensations  of  his 
kingdom,  closing  one  and  introducing  another,  sealing  up  the 
vision  and  prophecy,  causing  the  sacrifice  and  oblation  to  cease 
(Dan,  ix.  24),  and  setting  up  a  kingdom  that  should  never  cease 
(Dan.  ii.  44). 

7.  State  the  five  points  involved  in  tJw  church  doctrine  as  to  Hue 
Person  of  Christ. 

1st.  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  very  God,  possessing  the  divine 
nature  and  all  its  essential  attributes.  2d.  He  is  also  true  man, 
his  human  nature  derived  by  generation  from  the  stock  of 
Adam.  3d.  These  natures  continue  united  in  his  Person,  yet 
ever  remain  true  divinity  and  true  humanity,  unmixed  and  as 
to  essence  unchanged.  So  that  Christ  possesses  at  once  in  the 
unity  of  his  Person  two  spirits  with  all  their  essential  attri- 
butes, a  human  consciousness,  mind,  heart,  and  will,  and  a 
divine  consciousness,  mind,  feeling,  and  will.  uQemina  sub- 
stantia, gemma  mens,  gemina  sapientia  robur  et  virtus." — "Admo- 
nitio  Neostadtiensis,"  1581,  of  which  Ursinus  was  the  principal 
author.  Yet  it  does  not  become  us  to  attempt  to  explain  the 
manner  in  which  the  two  spirits  mutually  affect  each  other,  or 
how  far  they  meet  in  one  consciousness,  nor  how  the  two  wills 
co-operate  in  one  activity,  in  the  union  of  the  one  person. 
4th.  Nevertheless  they  constitute  as  thus  united  one  single 
Person,  and  the  attributes  of  both  natures  belong  to  the  one 
Person.  5th.  This  Personality  is  not  a  new  one  constituted  by 
the  union  of  the  two  natures  in  the  womb  of  the  Virgin,  but  it 
is  the  eternal  and  immutable  Person  of  the  X.oyo$,  which  in 
time  assumed  into  itself  a  nascent  human  nature,  and  ever 
subsequently  embraces  the  human  nature  with  the  divine  in 
the  Personality  which  eternally  belongs  to  the  latter. 

8.  How  may  it  be  proved  that  Christ  is  ready  a  man  ? 

He  is  called  man. — 1  Tim.  ii.  5.  His  most  common  title 
is  Son  of  Man,  Matt.  xiii.  37,  also  seed  of  the  woman,  Gen. 
iii.  15;  the  seed  of  Abraham,  Acts  iii.  25;  Son  of  David,  and 
fruit  of  his  loins,  Luke  i.  32;  made  of  a  woman. — Gal.  iv.  4. 
He  had  a  body,  ate,  drank,  slept,  and  increased  in  stature,  Luke 
ii.  52 ;  and  through  a  life  of  thirty-three  years  was  recognized 
by  all  men  as  a  true  man.  He  died  in  agony  on  the  cross,  was 
buried,  rose,  and  proved  his  identity  by  physical  signs. — Luke 
xxiv.  36-44.  He  had  a  reasonable  sold,  for  he  increased  in  wis- 
dom. He  exercised  the  common  feelings  of  our  nature,  he 
groaned  in  spirit  and  was  troubled,  he  wept. — John  xi.  33,  35 


THE   DOCTRINE   PROVED.  381 

He  loved  Martha  and  Mary,  and  the  disciple  that  Jesus  loved 
leaned  upon  his  bosom. — John  xiii.  23. 

The  absolute  divinity  of  Christ  has  been  proved  above, 
Chap.  IX. 

9.  How  may  it  be  proved  that  both  these  natures  constituted  but 
one  person  ? 

In  many  passages  both  natures  are  referred  to,  when  it  is 
evident  that  only  one  person  was  intended. — Phil.  ii.  6-11. 
In  many  passages  both  natures  are  set  forth  as  united.  It  is 
never  affirmed  that  divinity  abstractly,  or  a  divine  power,  was 
united  to,  or  manifested  in  a  human  nature,  but  of  the  divine 
nature  concretely,  that  a  divine  person  was  united  to  a  human 
nature. — Heb.  ii.  11-14;  1  Tim.  iii.  16;  Gal.  iv.  4;  Rom.  viii.  3 
and  i.  3,  4 ;  ix.  5 ;  John  i.  14 ;  1  John  iv.  3. 

The  union  of  two  natures  in  one  person  is  also  clearly  taught 
by  those  passages  in  which  the  attributes  of  one  nature  are 
predicated  of  the  person,  while  that  person  is  designated  by  a 
title  derived  from  the  other  nature.  Thus  human  attributes 
and  actions  are  predicated  of  Christ  in  certain  passages,  while 
the  person  of  whom  these  attributes  or  actions  are  predicated, 
is  designated  by  a  divine  title. — Acts  xx.  28;  Rom.  viii.  32; 
1  Cor.  ii.  8;  Matt.  i.  23;  Luke  i.  31,  32;  Col.  i.  13,  14. 

On  the  other  hand,  in  other  passages,  divine  attributes  and 
actions  are  predicated  of  Christ,  while  his  person,  of  whom 
those  attributes  are  predicated,  is  designated  by  a  human  title. 
John  iii.  13 ;  vi.  62 ;  Rom.  ix.  5 ;  Rev.  v.  12. 

10.  What  is  the  general  principle  upon  which  those  passages  are 
to  be  explained  which  designate  the  person  of  Christ  from  one  nature, 
and  predicate  attributes  to  it  belonging  to  the  other  ? 

The  person  of  Christ,  constituted  of  two  natures,  is  one  per- 
son. He  may,  therefore,  indifferently  be  designated  by  divine 
or  human  titles,  and  both  divine  and  human  attributes  may  be 
truly  predicated  of  him.  He  is  still  God  when  he  dies,  and  still 
man  when  he  raises  his  people  from  their  graves. 

Mediatorial  actions  pertain  to  both  natures.  It  must  be  re- 
membered, however,  that  while  the  person  is  one,  the  natures 
are  distinct,  as  such.  What  belongs  to  either  nature  is  attrib- 
uted to  the  oiie  person  to  which  both  belong,  but  what  is  pecu- 
liar to  one  nature  is  never  attributed  to  the  other.  God,  i.  e., 
the  divine  person  who  is  at  once  God  and  man,  gave  his  blood 
for  his  church,  i.  e.,  died  as  to  his  human  nature  (Acts  xx.  28). 
But  human  attributes  or  actions  are  never  asserted  of  Christ's 
divine  nature,  nor  are  divine  attributes  or  actions  ever  asserted 
of  his  human  nature. 


382  THE    PERSON   OF   CHRIST. 

11.  How  liave  theologians  defined  the  ideas  of  "nature"  and 
'  person  "  as  they  are  involved  in  this  doctrine  ? 

In  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  the  difficulty  is  that  one  Spirit 
exists  as  three  Persons.  In  the  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation  the 
difficulty  is  that  two  spirits  exist  in  union  as  one  Person. 

"  Nature  "  in  this  connection  has  been  defined  by  the  terms, 
"essence,"  "being,"  "substance." 

"  Person  "  in  this  connection  has  been  defined  as  "  an  indi- 
vidual substance,  which,  is  neither  part  of,  nor  is  sustained  by 
some  other  thing,"  or  as  "  an  intelligent  individual  subsistence, 
per  se  subsistens."  The  human  nature  in  Christ  never  was  "per 
se  subsistens,"  but  since  it  began  to  be  as  a  germ  generated 
into  personal  union  with  the  eternal  Second  Person  of  the  God- 
head, so  from  the  beginning  "in  altero  sustentatur." 

12.  What  were  the  effects  of  this  personal  union  upon  the  Divine 
nature  of  Christ  ? 

His  divine  nature  being  eternal  and  immutable,  and,  of 
course,  incapable  of  addition,  remained  essentially  unchanged 
by  this  union.  The  whole  immutable  divine  essence  continued 
to  subsist  as  the  eternal  Personal  Word,  now  embracing  a  per- 
fect human  nature  in  the  unity  of  his  person,  and  as  the  organ 
of  his  will.  Yet  thereby  is  the  relation  of  the  divine  nature 
changed  to  the  whole  creation,  since  he  has  become  Emman- 
uel, "  God  with  us,"  "  God  manifest  in  the  flesh." 

13.  What  were  the  effects  of  that  union  upon  his  human  nature  ? 

The  human  nature,  being  perfect  after  its  kind,  began  to 
exist  in  union  with  the  divine  nature,  and  as  one  constituent 
of  the  divine  Person,  and  as  such  it  ever  continues  unmixed 
and  essentially  unchanged  human  nature. 

The  effect  of  this  union  upon  Christ's  human  nature,  there- 
fore, was — 

1st.  Exaltation  of  all  human  excellencies  above  the  standard 
of  human  and  of  creaturely  nature. — John  i.  14 ;  iii.  34 ;  Is.  xii.  2. 

2d.  Unparalleled  exaltation  to  dignity  and  glory,  above  every 
name  that  is  named,  and  a  community  of  honor  and  worship 
with  the  divinity  in  virtue  of  its  union  therewith  in  the  one 
divine  Person. 

3d.  As  in  the  union  of  soul  and  body  in  the  natural  person, 
the  soul  although  absolutely  destitute  of  extension  in  itself,  is 
in  virtue  of  its  union  with  the  body  present  at  once  from  the 
crown  of  the  head  to  the  sole  of  the  foot, — that  is  virtually,  if 
not  essentially,  present  in  conscious  perception  and  active  voli- 
tion,— so  through  its  personal  union  with  the  eternal  Word  ia 


COMMUNICATIO    IDIOMATUM.  383 

the  human  nature  of  Christ,  (a)  virtually  present  (although  lo- 
cally in  heaven)  with  his  people  in  the  most  distant  parts  of  the 
earth  at  the  same  time,  sympathizing  with  each  severally  as 
one  who  has  himself  also  been  tempted,  (b)  rendered  practically 
inexhaustible 'in  all  those  draughts  made  upon  its  energies  by 
the  constant  exercise  of  those  mediatorial  functions  which  in- 
volve both  natures. 

Hence  the  church  doctrine  concerning  the  "  communicatio 
idiomatum  vel  proprietatum  "  of  the  two  natures  of  Christ.  It 
is  affirmed  in  the  concrete  in  respect  to  the  person,  but  denied 
in  the  abstract  in  respect  to  the  natures;  it  is  affirmed  utrius 
natural  ad  personam,  but  denied  utrius  naturce  ad  naiuram. 

14.  How  far  is  the  human  nature  of  Christ  included  in  the  wor- 
ship due  to  him? 

We  must  distinguish  between  the  object  and  the  grounds  of 
worship.  There  can  be  no  proper  ground  of  worship,  except 
the  possession  of  divine  attributes.  The  object  of  worship  is 
not  the  divine  excellence  in  the  abstract,  but  the  divine  person 
of  whom  that  excellence  is  an  attribute.  The  God-man,  con- 
sisting of  two  natures,  is  to  be  worshipped  in  the  perfection  of 
his  entire  person,  because  only  of  his  divine  attributes. 

15.  State  the  analogy  "presented  in  the  union  of  tiuo  natures  in 
the  persons  of  men. 

1st.  Every  human  person  comprehends  two  distinct  natures, 
(a)  a  conscious,  self-acting,  self-determined  spirit  absolutely 
without  extension  in  space,  and  (h)  an  extended  highly  organ- 
ized body  composed  of  passive  matter. 

2d.  These  constitute  but  one  person.  The  body  is  part  of 
the  person. 

3d.  These  natures  remain  distinct,  the  attributes  of  the  spirit 
never  being  made  common  to  the  material  body,  nor  the  attri- 
butes of  the  body  to  the  spirit,  but  the  attributes  of  both  body 
and  spirit  are  common  to  the  one  person.  The  person  is  often 
designated  by  a  title  proper  to  one  nature  while  the  predicate 
is  proper  to  the  other  nature. 

4th.  The  spirit  is  the  person.  When  the  spirit  leaves  the 
body  the  latter  is  buried  as  a  corpse,  while  the  former  goes  to 
judgment.  At  the  resurrection  the  spirit  will  resume  the  corpse 
into  the  person. 

5th.  While  in  union  the  person  possesses  and  exercises  the 
attributes  of  both  natures.  And  in  virtue  of  the  union  the  un- 
extended  spirit  is  present  virtually  wherever  the  extended  body 
is,  and  the  inert  insensible  matter  of  the  nerve  tissues  thrill 


384  THE   PERSON  OF   CHRIST. 

with  feeling  and  throb  with  will  as  organs  of  the  feeling  and 
willing  soul. 

16.  What  is  the  peculiar  view  as  to  the  "  communicatio  idioma- 
tum"  introduced  into  theology  by  the  Lutherans?  and  state  tJie  rea- 
sons/or not  accepting  it. 

In  connection  with,  and  in  the  process  of  maintaining,  his 

Eeculiar  view  as  to  the  presence  of  the  very  substance  of  Christ's 
odv  and  blood  in,  with,  and  under  the  bread  and  the  wine  in 
the  Eucharist,  Luther  and  his  followers  introduced  and  elabo- 
rated a  doctrine  that,  in  consequence  of  the  hypostatical  union 
of  the  divine  natures  in  the  one  person  of  Christ,  each  nature 
shares  in  the  essential  attributes  of  the  other  nature. 

When  they  came  to  explain  the  matter  moi-e  fully,  they  did 
not  affirm  that  any  distinctive  attribute  of  humanity  was  shared 
by  the  divinity,  nor  that  the  human  nature  shared  all  the  attri- 
butes of  the  divine;  they  affirmed  in  detail  simply  that  the 
humanity  shared  with  the  divine  in  its  omniscience,  omnipres- 
ence, and  power  of  giving  life. 

The  advocates  of  this  doctrine  were  divided  into  two  schools : 
1st.  The  most  extreme  and  logically  consistent,  represented 
by  John  Brentz  and  the  theologians  of  Tubingen.  These  main- 
tained that  the  every  act  of  incarnation  effected,  as  the  essence 
of  the  personal  union,  the  participation  of  each  nature  in  the 
properties  of  the  other.  From  his  conception  in  the  womb  of 
the  Virgin  the  human  nature  of  Christ  was  inalienably  endowed 
with  all  the  divine  majesty,  and  all  those  properties  which  con- 
stitute it.  These  were  necessarily  exercised  from  the  first,  but 
not  manifested  during  his  earthly  life,  their  exercise  being 
hidden.  The  facts  of  Christ's  life  during  his  estate  of  humil- 
iation are  therefore  explained  by  a  voluntary  Krypsis,  or  hiding 
of  the  divine  properties  of  his  humanity. 

2d.  The  other  less  extreme  view  was  represented  by  Martin 
Chemnitz,  and  the  theologians  of  Giessen.  They  held  also,  that, 
by  the  very  act  of  incarnation  the  humanity  of  Christ  was  en- 
dowed with  divine  perfections.  That  as  to  his  relation  to  space, 
"Logos  non  extra  carnem,  et  caro  non  extra  Logon."  Yet  they 
taught  that  the  exercise  of  these  perfections  was  not  neces- 
sary, but  subject  to  the  will  of  the  divine  person,  who  causes 
his  human  nature  to  be  present  wherever  and  whensoever  he 
wills,  and  who  during  the  period  of  his  humiliation  on  earth 
voluntarily  emptied  (Kenosis)  his  human  nature  of  its  use 
and  exercise  of  its  divine  attributes.  Prof.  A.  B.  Bruce,  D.D., 
"Humiliation  of  Christ,"  Lecture  iii. — "The  Lutherans  held  the 
exaltation  of  the  humanity  to  meet  the  divinity,  and  (while  on 
earth)  the  Kenosis  of  the  humanity.    The  Reformed  insisted  on 


LUTHERAN   VIEW  REJECTED.  385 

the  reality  of  the  human  life  of  Christ,  and  the  self-emptying 
(Kenosis)  of  the  divinity  to  meet  the  humanity.  The  Lutherans 
held  the  double  life  of  the  glorified  humanity  (the  local  pres- 
ence and  the  illocal  omnipresence).  The  Reformed  tendency 
was  to  recognize  a  double  life  of  the  Logos — totus  extra  Jesurn, 
and  totus  in  Jesu." 

We  reject  the  Lutheran  view  because — 1st.  It  is  not  taught 
in  the  Bible.  It  really  rests  upon  their  mistaken  interpretation 
of  the  words  of  Christ — "  This  is  my  body." 

2d.  It  is  impossible  to  reconcile  it  with  the  phenomena  of 
Christ's  earthly  life.  It  increases  the  difficulties  of  the  problem 
it  was  invented  to  explain. 

3d.  It  virtually  destroys  the  incarnation  by  assimilating  the 
human  nature  to  the  divine  in  the  co-partnership  of  properties, 
whereby  it  is  virtually  abrogated,  and  in  effect  only  the  divine 
remains. 

4th.  It  involves  the  fallacy  of  conceiving  of  properties  as 
separable  from  the  substances  of  which  they  are  the  active 
powers,  and  thus  is  open  to  the  same  criticisms  as  the  doctrine 
of  transubstantiation. 

17.  How  can  it  be  shoivn  that  the  doctrine  of  the  incarnation  is 
a  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  Gospel  ? 

1st.  This  doctrine,  and  all  the  elements  thereof,  is  set  forth 
in  the  Scriptures  with  pre-eminent  clearness  and  prominence. 

2d.  Its  truth  is  essentially  involved  in  every  other  doctrine 
of  the  entire  system  of  faith ;  in  every  mediatorial  act  of  Christ, 
as  prophet,  priest  and  king;  in  the  whole  history  of  his  estate 
of  humiliation,  and  in  every  aspect  of  his  estate  of  exaltation ; 
and,  above  all,  in  the  significance  and  value  of  that  vicarious 
sacrifice  which  is  the  heart  of  the  gospel.  If  Christ  is  not  in 
the  same  person  both  God  and  man,  he  either  could  not  die, 
or  his  death  could  not  avail.  If  he  be  not  man,  his  whole  his- 
tory is  a  myth ;  if  he  be  not  God,  to  worship  him  is  idolatry, 
yet  not  to  worship  him  is  to  disobey  the  Father. — John  v.  23. 

3d.  Scripture  expressly  declares  that  this  doctrine  is  essen- 
tial.— 1  John  iv.  2,  3. 

18.  In  what  Creeds  and  by  what  Councils  has  this  doctrine  been 
most  accurately  defined? 

1st.  The  Creed  of  the  Council  of  Nice,  amended  by  the 
Council  of  Constantinople,  and  the  Athanasian  Creed,  and  the 
Creed  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  are  accurate  and  authorita- 
tive statements  of  the  whole  church  as  to  this  doctrine.  They 
are  all  to  be  found  above,  Ch.  VII. 

2d.  The  decision  of  the  Council  of  Ephesus,  a.  d.  431,  con- 
25 


38G  THE    PERSON   OF   CHRIST. 

demning  the  Nestorians,  and  affirming  the  unity  of  the  Person ; 
the  decision  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  (451)  against  Eutyches, 
affirming  the  distinction  of  natures;  and  the  decision  of  the 
Council  of  Constantinople  (681)  against  the  Monothelites,  af- 
firming that  Christ's  human  nature  retains  in  its  unimpaired 
integrity  a  separate  will  as  well  as  intelligence,  closed  the  grad- 
ually perfected  definition  of  the  church  doctrine  as  to  the  Por- 
son  of  Christ,  and  have  been  accepted  by  all  Protestants. 

19.  How  may  aU  Heresies  on  this  subject  be  classified? 

As  they  seek  relief  from  the  impossibility  which  reason  ex- 
periences in  the  effort  fully  to  comprehend  the  mutual  consist- 
ency of  all  the  elements  of  this  doctrine  (1)  in  the  denial  of  the 
divine  element,  (2)  or  in  the  denial  of  the  human  element  in  its 
reality  and  integrity,  or  (3)  in  the  denial  of  the  unity  of  the 
person  embracing  both  natures. 

20.  What  parties  have  held  that  Jesus  was  a  mere  man  ? 

In  the  early  church  the  Ebionites,  and  the  Alogi.  At  the 
time  of  the  Keformation  the  Socinians.  In  latter  times  nation- 
alists and  Unitarians.  For  an  account  of  their  history  and 
doctrines,  see  above,  Ch.  VI.,  Q.  11,  and  Q.  13,  and  below,  at 
the  close  of  this  chapter. 

21.  WJiat  parties  denied  Christ's  true  humanity  and  on  what 
grounds ? 

These  speculations  were  all  of  Gnostic  origin.  Hence  came 
the  conviction  that  matter  was  inherently  evil,  and  that  innu- 
merable yEoiis,  or  great  spiritual  emanations  from  the  absolute 
God,  mediate  between  him  and  the  actual  world.  Ilvivuaza 
come  from  God,  but  matter  is  self-existent,  and  the  animal 
souls  of  men  come  from  some  being  less  than  God.  Hence 
the  Docetse  (from  Soueoo  to  think,  to  appear}  held  that  the 
human  nature  (body  and  soul)  of  Christ  was  a  mere  (pdvrad/xa, 
or  appearance,  having  no  real  substantial  existence.  It  was 
a  mere  vision  or  phantom  through  which  the  Logos  chose  to 
manifest  himself  to  mankind  for  a  time. 

22.  State  the  Apollinarian  Heresy. 

Apollinaris,  bishop  of  Laodicea,  circum.  370,  of  general  re- 
pute for  orthodoxy  and  learning,  taught  that  as  man  naturally 
consists  of  a  body,  6c2>ua,  and  an  animal  soul,  ipvxv,  and  a  rational 
soul,  nvevjua,  all  comprehended  in  one  person,  so  in  Christ  the 
divine  logos  takes  the  place  of  the  human  nvevua,  and  his  one 

Eerson  consists  of  the  divine  itvlvna,  or  reasonable  soul,  and  the 
uman  animal  soul  and  body.     He  thus  gets  rid  of  the  difii- 


HERETICAL    VIEWS.  387% 

culty  attending  the  coexistence  of  two  rational,  self-conscious, 
self-determining  spirits  in  one  person,  and  at  the  same  time 
destroys  the  revealed  fact  that  Christ  is  at  once  very  man  and 
very  God.  This  was  condemned  by  the  Council  of  Constanti- 
nople, a.  d.  381. 

23.  What  was  the  Nestorian  Heresy  ? 

This  term  rather  expresses  an  exaggerated,  one-sided  ten- 
dency of  speculation  on  this  subject  than  a  positive  definable 
false  doctrine.  It  is  the  tendency  to  so  emphasize  the  dis- 
tinction of  the  two  complete,  unmodified  natures  in  Christ,  as 
to  throw  into  the  shade  the  equally  revealed  fact  of  the  unity 
of  his  Person. 

This  tendency  was  most  conspicuous  in  the  writings  of 
Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  the  leader  of  the  Antiochian  school, 
and  from  him  it  became  the  general  character  of  that  school. 
The  theology  of  the  Eastern  Church  of  the  fourth  and  fifth 
centuries  was  divided  between  the  two  great  rival  schools 
of  Alexandria  and  Antioch.  "In  the  Alexandrian  school,  an 
intuitive  mode  of  thought  inclining  to  the  mystical;  in  the 
Antiochian,  a  logical  reflective  bent  of  the  understanding  pre- 
dominated.— Neander,  "Hist.,"  Torrey's  Trans.,  Vol.  II.,  p.  352. 

Nestorius,  who  had  been  a  monk  at  Antioch,  became  patri- 
arch of  Constantinople.  He  disapproved  of  the  phrase,  "  Mother 
of  God  "  (Qedrottos),  as  applied  to  the  Virgin,  maintaining  that 
Mary  had  given  birth  to  Christ  but  not  to  God.  Cyril,  patri- 
arch of  Alexandria,  opposed  him,  and  both  pronounced  anath- 
emas against  each  other.  Nestorius  supposed,  in  accordance 
with  the  Antiochian  mode  of  thought,  that  the  divine  and  the 
human  natures  of  Christ  ought  to  be  distinctly  separated,  and 
admitted  only  a  dwdcpsia  (junction)  of  the  one  and  the  other, 
an  ivotHT/6ii  (indwelling)  of  the  Deity.  Cyril,  on  the  contrary, 
was  led  by  the  tendencies  of  the  Egyptian  (Alexandrian)  school, 
to  maintain  the  perfect  union  of  the  two  natures  ((pv6iHr)  £vao6is). 
Nestorius,  as  the  representative  of  his  party,  was  condemned 
by  the  Council  of  Ephesus,  a.  d.  431. — Hagenbach's  "  Hist,  of 
Doct.,"  Vol.  I.,  §  100. 

24  What  ivas  the  Eutychian  or  Monophysite  Heresy  ? 

Eutyches  was  an  abbot  at  Constantinople,  and  an  extreme 
disciple  of  Dioscuros,  the  successor  of  Cyril.  He  pressed  the 
opposition  to  the  Nestorians  to  the  length  of  confounding 
the  two  natures  of  Christ,  and  hence  holding  that  Christ  pos- 
sessed but  one  nature,  resulting  from  the  union  of  Divinity 
with  humanity.  They  were  styled  Monophysites.  They  were 
condemned  by  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  (a.   d.  451),  which 


388  THE    PERSON   OF   CHRIST. 

adopted  the  statement  communicated  by  Leo  the  Great,  bishop 
of  Rome,  to  Flavian,  patriarch  of  Constantinople.  "Totus  in 
suis,  totus  in  nostris." 

25.  What  icas  the  doctrine  of  the  Monothelites  ? 

The  Emperor  Heraclius  attempted  to  reunite  the  Monophy- 
sites  with  the  orthodox  Church  by  adopting,  as  a  compromises 
the  decision  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  as  the  coexistence 
of  two  distinct  natures  in  the  one  Person  of  Christ,  with  the 
amendment  that  there  was  in  consequence  of  the  personal 
union  but  one  divine-human  energy  (kvepyEia)  and  but  one 
will  in  Christ.  In  opposition  to  this  the  sixth  (Ecumenical 
Council  of  Constantinople  (a.  d.  681),  with  the  co-operation  of 
the  bishop  of  Rome,  adopted  the  doctrine  of  two  wills  in  Christ, 
and  two  energies,  as  the  orthodox  doctrine,  but  decided  that 
the  human  will  must  always  be  conceived  as  subordinate  to  the 
divine."— Hagenbach's  "  Hist,  of  Dock,"  §  104.  With  this  de- 
cision the  definition  of  this  doctrine,  as  received  by  the  whole 
church,  Greek,  Roman,  and  Protestant,  was  closed. 

26.  What  is  tJie  modern  doctrine  of  Kenosis  ? 

The  old  Socinian  doctrine  teaches  that  Jesus,  a  true  man 
after  his  ascension,  becomes  the  subject  of  an  apotheosis,  where- 
by he  is  exalted  into  a  condition  and  rank  between  that  of  God 
and  the  universe.  The  Eutychians  taught  that  the  human 
nature  was  absorbed  by  and  assimilated  to  the  divine.  The 
Lutherans  taught  that  the  human  nature  was  endowed  with 
the  properties  of  the  divine.  The  modern  doctrine  of  Kenosis 
is  that  instead  of  man  becoming  God,  or  being  personally  united 
to  divinity,  God  literally  became  man.  It  is  taught  with  vari- 
ous modifications  by  Drs.  Thomasius,  Hofmann,  Ebrard,  Marten- 
sen,  and  others,  and  very  clearly  by  Dr.  W.  F.  Gess  in  a  work 
translated  admirably  by  Dr.  J.  A.  Reubelt,  of  Indiana. 

The  term  signifies  a  voluntary  emptying  of  himself,  of  his 
divinity,  by  the  Logos.  It  is  derived  from  Phil.  ii.  7,  kavrdv 
exsvoode,  "  he  emptied  himself,"  and  is  supported  by  such  decla- 
rations as  John  i.  14.  "And  the  Word  icas  made  flesh,  and 
dwelt  among  us." 

I.  The  Father  alone  is  from  himself.  He  eternally  commu- 
nicates the  fulness  of  his  divine  essence  and  perfections  to  the 
Son,  thus  giving  to  him  to  have  life  in  himself.  The  Son  thus 
eternally  flowing  from  the  Father  unites  with  the  Father  in 
communicating  their  fulness  to  the  Spirit,  and  is  himself  the 
life  of  the  world. 

II.  "But  the  Logos  is  God;  he  has  life  in  himself  even  aa 
the  Father;  his  volition  to  receive  life  from  the  Father  is  the 


DOCTRINE    OF  KENOSIS.  389 

source  of  his 'life;  his  self-consciousness  is  his  own  act.     Hence 
it  follows  that  he  can  suspend  his  self-consciousness." 

III.  In  condescending  to  be  conceived  of  the  Virgin,  the 
Logos  laid  aside  his  self-consciousness,  and  with  it  the  commu- 
nication of  the  Father's  life  to  the  Son,  by  which  the  Son  has 
life  in  himself  even  as  the  Father,  and  hence  his  omniscience, 
omnipresence,  and  omnipotent  government  of  the  world  was 
euspended. 

IV.  When  the  substance  of  the  Logos  awoke  to  self-con- 
sciousness as  the  infant  Jesus,  it  was  as  a  true  human  infant, 
and  he  grew  and  developed  in  knowledge  and  powers,  as  a 
true  man  without  sin,  endowed  with  pre-eminent  grace  and 
the  fulness  of  the  indwelling  Spirit  of  God. 

V.  When  glorified  the  ante-mundane  eternal  communica- 
tion of  the  fulness  of  divine  life  from  the  Father  to  the  Logos 
recommenced,  and  though  continuing  truly  human,  he  is  no  less 
truly  God.  He  is  again  eternal,  omniscient,  omnipotent,  and 
omnipresent.  "Thus  a  man  is  received  into  the  trinitarian  life 
of  the  Deity,  from  and  by  the  glorification  of  the  Son." — "  Script. 
Doc.  Pers.  Christ.  Gess.,"  by  Reubelt. 

This  doctrine. — 1st.  Does  violence  to  the  infinite  perfections 
and  immutability  of  the  divine  nature.  2d.  It  is  not  consistent 
with  the  Scriptural  fact  that  Christ,  while  on  earth,  was  real  and 
absolute  God.  3d.  It  is  not  consistent  with  the  fact  that  the 
humanity  of  Christ  was  real  humanity  generated  of  the  seed 
of  Abraham.  4th.  It  is  confessedly  different  from  the  imme- 
morial and  universal  faith  of  the  Church. 

For  a  thorough  discussion,  see  Dr.  A.  B.  Bruce's  "  Humilia- 
tion of  Christ." 

Authoritative  Statements. 

The  Greek,  Roman,  and  Protestant  Churches  all  agree  in  accepting 
the  definitions  of  the  Creeds,  those  of  Nice  and  of  Chalcedon  and  the 
Athanasian  (so  called). — See  above  Chap.  VII. 

The  Lutheran  Doctrtne  as  to  the  Relations  of  the  two  Natures. 

" Formula  Concordice,"  Pars.  I.,  Epitome,  ch.  8,  $  11  and  12. — 
"  Therefore  not  only  as  God,  but  also  as  man,  he  knows  all  things,  and 
had  power  to  do  all  things,  is  present  to  all  creatures,  and  has  all  things 
which  are  in  heaven,  on  earth,  and  under  the  earth,  under  his  feet,  and 
in  his  hands.  '  All  things  are  given  to  mc  in  heaven  and  on  earth,'  and 
'  he  ascended  above  all  heavens,  and  fills  all  things. '  Being  everywhere 
present,  he  is  able  to  exercise  this  his  power,  neither  is  any  thing  to  him 
either  impossible  or  unknown.  Hence,  moreover,  and  most  easily,  is  he 
being  present,  able  to  distribute  his  true  body  and  blood  in  the  sacred 
Supper.  But  this  is  done  not  according  to  the  mode  and  property  of 
human  nature,  but  according  to  the  mode  and  property  of  the  right  hand 
of  God.  .  .  .  And  this  presence  of  Christ  in  the  sacred  Supper  is 
neither  physical  nor  earthly,  nor  capernaitish  (see  John  vi.  52-59),  never- 
theless, it  is  most  true  and  substantial." 


390  THE    PERSON   OF   CHRIST. 

Pars.  2  ("Solida  Declaratio "),  ch.  8,  \  4. — "For  that  communion  of 
natures,  and  of  properties,  is  not  the  result  of  an  essential,  or  natural 
effusion  of  the  properties  of  the  divine  nature  upon  the  human:  as  if  the 
humanity  of  Christ  had  them  subsisting  independently  and  separate  from 
divinity;  or  as,  if  by  that  communion,  the  human  nature  of  Christ  had 
laid  aside  its  natural  properties,  and  was  either  converted  into  the  divine 
nature,  or  was  made  equal  in  itself,  and  per  se  to  the  divine  nature  by 
those  properties  thus  communicated,  or  that  the  natural  properties  and 
operations  were  identical  or  even  equaL  For  these  and  like  errors  have 
justly  been  rejected,  etc. " 

Luther  says,  "  Where  you  put  God,  there  you  must  put  the  humanity 
(of  Christ),  they  can  not  be  sundered  or  riven;  it  is  one  person,  and  the 
humanity  is  more  closely  united  with  God  than  is  our  skin  with  our  flesh, 
yea,  more  intimately  than  body  with  soul." 

DOCTKTNE  OF  THE  PiEEOKMED  ChUKCHES. 

"Confessio  Helvetica  Posterior  "  ch.  xi. — "We  acknowledge,  therefore, 
that  in  one  and  the  same  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  there  are  two  natures,  and 
we  say  that  these  are  so  conjoined  and  united  that  they  are  not  absorbed, 
nor  confused  nor  mixed;  but  are  rather  united  and  conjoined  in  one 
person,  being  preserved  with  their  permanent  properties;  so  that  we  wor- 
ship one  Lord  the  Christ,  and  not  two;  one  we  say,  true  God  and  man, 
according  to  his  divine  nature  consubstantial  with  the  Father,  and  accord- 
ing to  his  human  nature  consubstantial  with  us  men,  and  in  all  things 
like  us,  sin  excepted.  Therefore,  as  we  abominate  the  Nestorian  dogma 
making  two  out  of  one  Christ,  and  dissolving  the  union  of  the  Person; 
so,  also,  we  heartily  execrate  the  madness  of  Eutyches  and  of  the  Mono- 
physites  and  the  Monothelites,  expunging  the  property  of  the  human 
nature.  Therefore,  we  in  no  wise  teach  that  the  divine  nature  in  Christ 
suffered,  or  that  Christ  according  to  his  human  nature  has  hitherto  been 
in  this  world,  and  so  is  everywhere. " 

"West.  Con/.,"  Ch.  8,  \  2.— "The  Son  of  God,  the  second  person  in 
the  Trinity,  being  very  and  eternal  God,  of  one  substance,  and  equal 
with  the  Father,  did,  when  the  fulness  of  time  was  come,  take  upon  him 
man's  nature,  and  all  the  essential  properties  and  common  infirmities 
thereof,  yet  without  sin:  being  conceived  by  the  power  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  in  the  womb  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  of  her  substance.  So  that  two 
whole,  perfect,  and  distinct  natures,  the  Godhead  and  the  manhood, 
were  inseparably  joined  together  in  one  person,  without  conversion, 
composition,  or  confusion.  Which  person  is  very  God  and  very  man, 
yet  one  Christ,  the  only  mediator  between  God  and  man." 


CHAPTER   XXIV. 

MEDIATORIAL  OFFICE  OF  CHRIST. 

1.  What  are  the  different  senses  of  the  word  Mediator,  and  in 
which  of  these  senses  is  it  used  when  applied  to  Christ  ? 

1st.  In  the  sense  of  internuntius  or  messenger,  to  explain 
the  will  and  to  perform  the  commands  of  one  or  both  the 
contracting  parties,  e.  a.,  Moses,  Gal.  iii.  19. 

2d.  In  the  sense  ot  simple  advocate  or  intercessor,  pleading 
the  cause  of  the  offending  in  the  presence  of  the  offended 
party. 

3d.  In  the  sense  of  efficient  peace-maker.  Christ,  as  Media- 
tor, 1st,  has  all  power  and  judgment  committed  to  his  hands, 
Matt,  xxviii.  18,  and  ix.  6;  John  v.  22,  25,  26,  27;  and,  2d,  he 
efficiently  makes  reconciliation  between  God  and  man  by  an 
all-satisfactory  expiation  and  meritorious  obedience. 

2.  Why  ivas  it  necessary  that  the  Mediator  should  be  possessed 
both  of  a  divine  and  human  nature  ? 

1st.  It  was  clearly  necessary  that  the  Mediator  should  be 
God.  (1.)  That  he  might  be  independent,  and  not  the  mere 
creature  of  either  party,  or  otherwise  he  could  not  be  the 
efficient  maker  of  peace.  (2.)  That  he  might  reveal  God  and 
his  salvation  to  men,  "  For  no  man  knoweth  the  Father  save 
the  Son,  and  he  to  whom  the  Son  will  reveal  him." — Matt.  xi.  27 ; 
John  i.  18.  (3.)  That  being,  as  to  person,  above  all  law,  and  as 
to  dignity  of  nature,  infinite,  he  might  render  to  the  law  in 
behalf  oi'  his  people  a  free  obedience,  which  he  did  not  other- 
wise owe  for  himself,  and  that  his  obedience  and  suffering 
might  possess  an  infinite  value.  (4.)  That  he  might  possess  the 
infinite  wisdom,  knowledge,  and  power  requisite  to  administer 
the  infinite  realms  of  providence  and  grace,  which  are  com- 
mitted to  his  hands  as  mediatorial  prince. 

2d.  It  is  clearly  necessary  that  he  should  be  man.  (1.)  That 
he  might  truly  represent  man  as  the  second  Adam.  (2.)  That 
he  might  be  made  under  the  law,  in  order  to  render  obedience, 


3U2  MEDIATORIAL    OFFICE    OF   CHRIST. 

suffering,  and  temptation  possible. — Gal.  iv.  4,  5 ;  Luke  iv.  1-13. 
(3.)  "In  all  things  it  behoved  him  to  be  made  like  unto  his 
brethren,  that  he  might  be  a  merciful  and  faithful  high  priest." 
Heb.  ii.  17,  18,  and  iv.  15,  16.  (4.  \  That  in  his  glorified 
humanity  he  might  be  the  head  of  the  glorified  church,  the 
example  and  pattern  to  whom  his  people  are  "predestined  to 
be  conformed,  that  he  might  be  the  first-born  among  many 
brethren." — Eom.  viii.  29. 

3.  What  diversity  of  opinion  exists  as  to  whetJier  Christ  acts 
as  Mediator  in  one  or  both  natures  ? 

The  Eomanists  hold  that  Christ  was  Mediator  only  in  his 
human  nature,  arguing  that  it  is  impossible  that  God  could 
mediate  between  man  and  himself. 

The  very  opposite  has  been  maintained,  viz.,  that  Christ 
was  Mediator  only  in  his  divine  nature. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Bible  is,  that  Christ  was  Mediator  as 
the  God-man,  in  both  natures. 

4.  How  may  the  acts  of  Christ  be  classified  with  reference  to 
his  two  natures? 

Theologians  have  properly  distinguished  (vide  Turretin,  in 
loco)  between  the  person  who  acts  and  the  nature  or  inward 
energy  whereby  he  acts. 

Thus  we  affirm  of  the  one  man,  that  he  thinks  and  that  he 
walks.  The  same  person  performs  these  two  classes  of  action 
so  radically  distinct,  in  virtue  of  the  two  natures  embraced  in 
his  single  person.  So  the  single  person  of  the  God-man  performs 
all  actions  involving  the  attributes  of  a  divine  nature  in  virtue 
of  his  divine  nature,  and  all  actions  involving  the  attributes  of 
a  human  nature  in  virtue  of  his  human  nature. 

5.  Hoiv  can  it  be  proved  that  Ive  was  Mediator,  and  acted  as 
such  both  in  his  divine  and  human  natures? 

1st.  From  the  fact  that  the  discharge  of  each  of  the  three 
great  functions  of  the  mediatorial  office,  the  prophetical,  priestly, 
and  kingly,  involves  the  attributes  of  both  natures,  as  has  been 
fully  proved  under  Question  2. 

2d.  From  the  fact  that  the  Bible  attributes  all  his  acts  as 
Mediator  to  the  one  person,  viewed  as  embracing  both  natures. 
The  person  is  often  designated  by  a  term  derived  from  the 
attributes  of  one  nature,  while  the  mediatorial  action  attributed 
to  that  person  is  plainly  performed  in  virtue  of  the  other  nature 
embraced  within  it. — See  Acts  xx.  28 ;  1  Cor.  ii.  8 ;  Heb.  ix.  14. 

3d.  From  the  fact  that  he  was  Mediator  from  the  founda- 
tion of  the  earth  (see  Chapter  XXII.,  Question  11),  it  is  clear 


CHRIST   OUR    ONLY  MEDIATOR.  393 

that  he  was  not  Mediator  in  his  human  nature  alone ;  and  from 
the  fact  that  the  Eternal  Word  became  incarnate,  in  order  to 
prepare  himself  for  the  full  discharge  of  his  mediatorial  work 
(Heb.  ii.  17,  18),  it  is  equally  plain  that  he  was  not  Mediator  in 
his  divine  nature  alone. 

6.  In  ivhat  sense  do  the  Romanists  regard  saints  and  angels  as 
mediators  ? 

They  do  not  attribute  either  to  saints  or  angels  the  work  of 
propitiation  proper.  Yet  they  hold  that  the  merits  of  the  saint 
are  the  ground  and  measure  of  the  efficiency  of  his  interces- 
sion, as  in  the  case  of  Christ. 

7.  How  far  do  they  ascribe  a  mediatorial  character  to  their 
priests  ? 

The  Protestant  holds  that  the  church  is  composed  of  a  com- 
pany of  men  united  to  one  another  in  virtue  of  the  immediate 
union  of  each  with  Christ  the  head.  The  Romanist  holds,  on 
the  contrary,  that  each  individual  member  is  united  immedi- 
ately to  the  church,  and  through  the  church  to  Christ.  Their 
priests,  therefore,  of  the  true  apostolic  succession,  subject  to 
apostolic  bishops,  being  the  only  authorized  dispensers  of  the 
sacraments,  and  through  them  of  Christ's  grace,  are  mediators — 

1st.  Between  the  individual  and  Christ,  the  necessary  link 
of  union  with  him. 

2d.  In  their  offering  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass,  and  making 
therein  a  true  propitiation  for  the  venial  sins  of  the  people. 
Christ's  great  sacrifice  having  atoned  for  original  sin,  and  laid 
the  foundation  for  the  propitiatory  virtue  which  belongs  to  the 
Mass. 

3d.  In  their  being  eminent  intercessors. 

8.  How  can  it  be  proved  that  Christ  is  our  only  Mediator  in  tlve, 
proper  sense  of  the  term? 

1st.  Direct  testimony  of  Scripture. — 1  Tim.  ii.  5. 

2d.  Because  the  Scriptures  show  forth  Christ  as  fulfilling 
in  our  behalf  every  mediatorial  function  that  is  necessary,  alike 
propitiation  and  advocacy,  1  John  ii.  1 ;  on  earth  and  in  heaven, 
—Heb.  ix.  12,  24,  and  vii.  25. 

3d.  Because  in  virtue  of  the  infinite  dignity  of  his  person 
and  perfection  of  his  nature,  all  these  functions  were  discharged 
by  him  exhaustively. — Heb.  x.  14;  Col.  ii.  10. 

4th.  Because  there  is  "complete"  salvation  in  him,  and  no 
salvation  in  any  other,  and  no  man  can  come  to  the  Father 
except  through  him. — John  xiv.  6;  Acts  iv.  12. 

5th.  There  is  no  room  for  any  mediator  between  the  indi 


394  MEDIATORIAL    OFFICE    OF   CHRIST. 

vidual  and  Christ — (1)  because  he  is  our  "brother"  and  "sym- 
pathizing high  priest, '  who  invites  every  man  immediately  to 
himself,  Matt.  xi.  28;  (2)  because  the  work  of  drawing  men 
to  Christ  belongs  to  the  Holy  Ghost. — John  vi.  44,  and  xvi.  14. 

9.  What  relation  do  the  Scriptures  represent  tlie  Holy  GJiost  as 
sustaining  to  the  mediatorial  ivork  of  Christ  ? 

1st.  Begetting  and  replenishing  his  human  nature. — Luke  L 
35;  ii.  40;  John  iii.  34;  Ps.  xlv.  7. 

2d.  All  Christ's  mediatorial  functions  were  fulfilled  in  the 
Spirit;  his  prophetical  teachings,  his  priestly  sacrifice,  and  his 
kingly  administrations.  The  Spirit  descended  upon  him  at  his 
baptism,  Luke  iii.  22 ;  and  led  him  into  the  wilderness  to  be 
tempted,  Matt.  iv.  1 ;  he  returned  in  the  power  of  the  Spirit  into 
Galilee,  Luke  iv.  14;  through  the  eternal  Spirit  he  offered  him 
self  without  spot  to  God. — Heb.  ix.  14. 

3d.  The  dispensation  of  the  Spirit,  as  "the  Spirit  of  truth," 
"the  Sanctifier,"  and  "the  Comforter,"  vests  in  Christ  as  Medi- 
ator, as  part  of  the  condition  of  the  covenant  of  grace. — John 
xv.  26,  and  xvi.  7 ;  and  vii.  39 ;  Acts  ii.  33. 

4th.  The  Holy  Spirit  thus  dispensed  by  Christ  as  Mediator 
acts  for  him,  and  leads  to  him  in  teaching,  quickening,  sanctify- 
ing, preserving,  and  acting  all  grace  in  his  people.  As  Christ 
when  on  earth  led  only  to  the  Father,  so  the  Holy  Ghost  now 
leads  only  to  Christ. — John  xv.  26,  and  xvi.  13,  14;  Acts  v.  32; 
1  Cor.  xii.  3. 

5th.  While  Christ  as  Mediator  is  said  to  be  our  "  nrapax^ro?," 
"advocate,"  with  the  Father  (1  John  ii.  1),  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
said  to  be  our  ^itapdnXrjzo^^  "advocate,"  translated  "Comforter" 
on  earth,  to  abide  with  us  forever,  to  teach  us  the  things  of 
Christ,  and  to  hold  a  controversy  with  the  world. — John  xiv. 
16,  26,  and  xv.  26,  and  xvi.  7-9. 

6th.  While  Christ  is  said  to  be  our  Mediator  to  make  inter- 
cession for  us  in  heaven,  Heb.  vii.  25 ;  Eom.  viii.  34,  the  Holy 
Ghost,  by  forming  thoughts  and  desires  within  us  according  to 
the  will  of  God,  is  said  to  make  intercession  for  us  with  unutter- 
able groanings. — Rom.  viii.  26,  27. 

7th.  The  sum  of  the  whole  is,  "We  have  introduction  to  the 
Father  through  the  Son  by  the  Spirit." — Eph.  ii.  18. 

10.  On  what  ground  are  the  threefold  offices  of  proplnet,  py'iest, 
and  king  applied  to  Christ? 

1st.  Because  these  three  functions  are  all  equally  necessary, 
and  together  exhaust  the  whole  mediatorial  work. 

2d.  Because  the  Bible  ascribes  all  of  these  functions  to  Christ. 
Prophetical,  Deut.  xviii  15,  18;  compare  Acts  iii.  22,  and  vii.  37; 


HIS    OFFICE    AS   PROPHET.  395 

Heb.  i.  2;  priestly,  Ps.  ex.  4,  and  the  whole  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews;  kingly,  Acts  v.  31;  1  Tim.  vi.  15;  Rev.  xvii.  14. 

It  is  always  to  be  remembered  that  these  are  not  three  offices, 
but  three  functions  of  the  one  indivisible  office  of  mediator. 
These  functions  are  abstractly  most  distinguishable,  but  in  the 
concrete  and  in  their  exercise  they  qualify  one  another  in  every 
act.  Thus,  when  he  teaches,  he  is  essentially  a  royal  and 
priestly  teacher,  and  when  he  rules  he  is  a  priestly  and  pro- 
phetical king,  and  when  he  either  atones  or  intercedes  he  is  a 
prophetical  and  kingly  priest. 

These  were  first  grouped  together  as  belonging  to  Christ  by 
Eusebius  (261-340),  Bk.  I,  ch.  iii. — "So  that  all  these  have  a 
reference  to  the  true  Christ,  the  divine  and  heavenly  Word,  the 
only  high  priest  of  all  men,  the  only  king  of  all  creation,  and 
the  Father's  only  supreme  Prophet  of  prophets." 

11.  What  is  the  Scriptural  sense  of  the  word  prophet? 

Its  general  sense  is  one  who  speaks  for  another  with  au- 
thority as  interpreter.  Thus  Moses  was  prophet  for  his  brother 
Aaron. — Ex.  vii.  1. 

A  prophet  of  God  is  one  qualified  and  authorized  to  speak  for 
God  to  men.     Foretelling  future  events  is  only  incidental. 

12.  How  does  Christ  execute  the  office  of  a  prophet  ? 

I.  Immediately  in  his  own  person,  as  when  (1)  on  earth 
with  his  disciples,  and  (2)  the  light  of  the  new  Jerusalem  in 
the  midst  of  the  throne. — Rev.  xxi.  23. 

II.  Mediately,  1st,  through  his  Spirit,  (1)  by  inspiration, 
(2)  by  spiritual  illumination.  2d.  Through  the  officers  of  his 
church,  (1)  those  inspired  as  apostles  and  prophets,  and  (2) 
those  naturally  endowed,  as  the  stated  ministry. — Eph.  iv.  11. 

III.  Both  externally,  as  through  his  word  and  works  ad- 
dressed to  the  understanding,  and, 

IV.  Internally,  by  the  spiritual  illumination  of  the  heart. — 
1  John  ii.  20,  and  v.  20. 

V.  In  three  grand  successive  stages  of  development,  (a.) 
Before  his  incarnation;  (b)  since  his  incarnation;  (c)  through- 
out eternity  in  glory. — Rev.  vii.  17,  and  xxi.  23. 

13.  How  can  it  be  proved  that  he  acted  as  such  before  his 
incarnation  ? 

1st.  His  divine  title  of  Logos,  "Word,"  as  by  nature  as  well 
as  office  the  eternal  Revealer. 

2d.  It  has  been  before  proved  (Chap.  XXII.,  Question  11,  and 
Chap.  IX.,  Question  14)  that  he  was  the  Jehovah  of  the  Old 


396  MEDIATORIAL    OFFICE    OF   CHRIST. 

Testament  economy.     Called  Counsellor. — Is.  ix.  6.     Angel  of 
the  Covenant. — Mai.  iii.  1.     Interpreter. — Job  xxxiii.  23. 

3d.  The  fact  is  directly  affirmed  in  the  New  Testament. — 1 
Pet.  i.  11. 

14.  What  is  essential  to  the  priestly  office,  or  what  is  a  priest  in 
the  Scriptural  sense  of  that  term? 

As  the  general  idea  of  a  prophet  is,  one  qualified  and  au- 
thorized to  speak  for  God  to  men,  so  the  general  idea  of  a 
priest  is,  one  qualified  and  authorized  to  treat  in  behalf  of  men 
with  God. 

A  priest,  therefore,  must — 

1st.  Be  taken  from  among  men  to  represent  them. — Heb.  v. 
1,  2;  Ex.  xxviii.  9,  12,  21,  29. 

2d.  Chosen  by  God  as  his  special  election  and  property. — 
Num.  xvi.  5;  Heb.  v.  4. 

3d.  Holy,  morally  pure  and  consecrated  to  the  Lord. — Lev. 
xxi.  6,  8;  Ps.  cvi.  16;  Ex.  xxxix.  30,  31. 

4th.  They  have  a  right  to  draw  near  to  Jehovah,  and  to 
bring  near,  or  offer  sacrifice,  and  to  make  intercession. — Num. 
xvi.  5;  Ex.  xix.  22;  Lev.  xvi.  3,  7,  12,  15. 

The  priest,  therefore,  was  essentially  a  mediator,  admitted 
from  among  men  to  stand  before  God,  for  the  purpose,  1st,  of 
propitiation  by  sacrifice,  Heb.  v.  1,  2,  3;  and,  2d,  of  inter- 
cession, Luke  i.  10;  Ex.  xxx.  8;  Rev.  v.  8,  and  viii.  3,  4. 
Taken  from  Fairbairn's  "Typology,"  Vol.  II.,  Part  III.,  Chap.  iii. 

15.  Prove  from  the  Old  Testament  that  Christ  was  truly  a 
priest. 

1st.  It  is  expressly  declared. — Compare  Ps.  ex.  4,  with  Heb. 
v.  6,  and  vi.  20;  Zech.  vi.  13. 

2d.  Priestly  functions  are  ascribed  to  him. — Is.  liii.  10,  12 ; 
Dan.  ix.  24,  25. 

3d.  The  whole  meaning  and  virtue  of  the  temple,  of  its  ser- 
vices, and  of  the  Levitical  priesthood,  lay  in  the  fact  that  they 
were  all  typical  of  Christ  and  his  work  as  priest.  This  Paul 
clearly  proves  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

16.  Shoio  from  the  Neio  Testament  that  all  the  requisites  of  a 
priest  were  found  in  him. 

1st.  Christ  was  a  man  taken  from  among  men  to  represent 
them  before  God. — Heb.  ii.  16,  and  iv.  15. 
2d.  He  was  chosen  by  God. — Heb.  v.  5,  6. 
3d.  He  was  perfectly  holy. — Luke  i.  35 ;  Heb.  vii.  26. 
4th.  He  had  the  right  of  the  nearest  access,  and  the  greatest 


HIS    OFFICE   AS   PRIEST.  397 

Influence  with  the  Father. — John  xvi.  28,  and  xi.  42 ;  Heb.  i.  3, 
and  ix.  11,  12,  13,  14,  24. 

17.  Show  that  he  actually  performed  all  the  duties  of  the  office. 

The  duty  of  the  priest  is  to  mediate  by  (1)  propitiation,  (2) 
intercession. 

1st.  He  mediated  in  the  general  sense  of  the  word. — John 
xiv.  6;  1  Tim.  ii.  5;  Heb.  viii.  6,  and  xii.  24. 

2d.  He  offered  propitiation. — Eph.  v.  2;  Heb.  ix.  26,  and 
x.  12;  1  Johnii.  2. 

3d.  He  offered  intercession. — Rom.  viii.  34 ;  Heb.  vii.  25 ;  1 
John  ii.  1. 

That  this  propitiatory  work  of  Christ  was  real,  and  not 
metaphorical,  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  it  superseded  the 
temple  services,  which  were  only  typical  of  it.  A  type  and 
shadow  necessarily  presupposes  a  literal  substance. — Heb.  ix. 
10-12,  and  x.  1;  Col.  ii.  17. 

18.  What  part  of  his  priestly  ivorlc  did  Christ  execute  on  earth, 
and  what  part  in  heaven  ? 

On  earth  he  rendered  obedience,  propitiation,  intercession. 
Heb.  v.  7-9,  and  ix.  26,  28;  Rom.  v.  19. 

In  heaven  he  has  presented  his  sacrifice  in  the  most  holy 
place,  and  ever  liveth  to  make  intercession  for  us. — Heb.  vii. 
24,  25,  and  ix.  12,  24. 

19.  In  what  respects  did  tJie  pi'iesthood  of  Christ  excel  the 
Aaronic  ? 

1st.  In  the  dignity  of  his  person.  They  were  mere  men. 
He  was  the  eternal  Son.  They  were  sinners  who  had  first  to 
make  atonement  for  their  own  sin,  and  afterwards  for  the  sin 
of  the  people.  He  was  holy,  harmless  and  undefiled. — Heb. 
vii.  26,  27.  He  was  perfect  man,  and  yet  his  access  to  God 
was  infinitely  nearer  than  that  of  any  other  being. — John  x. 
30;  Zech.  xiii.  7. 

2d.  In  the  infinite  value  of  his  sacrifice.  Theirs  could  not 
cleanse  from  sin,  Heb.  x.  4,  and  were  repeated  continually. — 
Heb.  x.  1-3.  His  sacrifice  was  perfectly  efficacious,  and  once 
for  all. — Heb.  x.  10-14.  Thus  theirs  were  only  the  shadow  of 
his. — Heb.  x.  1. 

3d.  In  the  manner  of  their  consecration.  They  without,  lie 
with  an  oath. — Heb.  vii.  20-22. 

4th.  They,  being  many,  succeeded  each  other  by  generation. 
He  continueth  forever. — Heb.  vii.  24. 

5th.  Christ's  priesthood  is  connected  with  a  "greater  and 


398  MEDIATORIAL    OFFICE    OF    CHRIST. 

more  perfect  tabernacle,"  earth  the  outer  court,  heaven  the  true 
sanctuary. — Heb.  ix.  11-24. 

6th.  Christ's  intercession  is  offered  from  a  throne. — Rom.  viii. 
34,  and  Heb.  viii.  1,  2. 

7th.  While  several  of  the  Old  Testament  servants  of  God 
were  at  once  both  prophet  and  king,  as  David ;  and  others  both 
prophet  and  priest,  as  Ezra;  Christ  alone,  and  that  in  divine 
perfection,  was  at  once  prophet,  priest,  and  king.  Thus  his  di- 
vine, prophetical,  and  kingly  perfections  qualified  and  enhanced 
the  transcendent  virtue  of  every  priestly  act. — Zech.  vi.  13. 

20.  In  what  sense  was  Christ  a  priest  after  tJw  order  of  Mel- 
chizedec  ? 

The  Aaronic  priesthood  was  typical  of  Christ,  but  in  two 
principal  respects  it  failed  in  representing  the  great  antitype. 

1st.  It  consisted  of  succeeding  generations  of  mortal  men. 

2d.  It  consisted  of  priests  not  royal. 

The  Holy  Ghost,  on  the  other  hand,  suddenly  brings  Mel- 
chizedec  before  us  in  the  patriarchal  history,  a  royal  priest,  with 
the  significant  names  "  King  of  Righteousness "  and  "  King 
of  Peace,"  Gen.  xiv.  18-20,  and  as  suddenly  withdraws  him. 
Whence  he  comes  and  whither  he  goes  we  know  not.  As  a 
private  man  he  had  an  unwritten  history,  like  others.  But  as 
a  royal  priest  he  ever  remains  without  father,  without  mother, 
without  origin,  succession,  or  end;  and  therefore,  as  Paul  says, 
Heb.  vii.  3,  made  beforehand  of  God,  an  exact  type  of  the  eter- 
nity of  the  priesthood  of  Christ,  Ps.  ex.  4.  The  prophecy  was, 
"Thou  shalt  be  a  pviest  forever"  or  an  eternal  priest  "after  the 
order  of  Melchizedec." 

The  similitude  of  this  type,  therefore,  included  two  things: 
1st,  an  everlasting  priesthood;  2d,  the  union  of  the  kingly  and 

friestly  functions  in  one  person. — Fairbairn's  "  Typology,"  VoL 
I.,  Part  III.,  Chap.  iii. 

21.  How  can  it  be  proved  that  the  Christian  ministry  is  not  a 
p'iesthood  ? 

1st.  Human  priests  were  ever  possible  only  as  types,  but 
types  are  possible  only  before  the  revelation  of  the  antitype. 
The  purpose  of  the  Aaronic  priesthood  was  fulfilled  in  Christ, 
and  therefore  the  institution  was  forever  abolished  by  Christ. 
Heb.  x.  1,  9,  18. 

2d.  Christ  exhaustively  discharges  all  the  duties  and  pur- 
poses of  the  priestly  office,  so  that  any  human  priest  (so-called) 
is  an  antichrist. — Heb.  x.  14;  Col.  ii.  10. 

3d.  There  can  be  no  need  of  any  priest  to  open  the  way  for 
us  to  Christ.     Because,  while  the  Scriptures  teach  us  that  we 


ALL    BELIEVERS   FRIES TS.  399 

can  only  go  to  God  by  Christ,  John  xiv.  G,  they  teach  us  no 
less  emphatically  that  we  must  come  immediately  to  Christ, 
Matt.  xi.  28;  John  v.  40,  and  vii.  37;  Kev.  hi.  20,  and  xxii.  17. 

4th.  No  priestly  function  is  ever  attributed  to  any  New  Tes- 
tament officer,  inspired  or  uninspired,  extraordinary  or  ordi- 
nary. The  whole  duty  of  all  these  officers  of  every  kind  is 
comprised  in  the  functions  of  teaching  and  ruling. — 1  Cor.  xii. 
28;  Eph.  iv.  11,  12;  1  Tim.  iii.  1-13;  1  Pet.  v.  2. 

5th.  They  are  constantly  called  by  different  designations, 
expressive  of  an  entirely  different  class  of  functions,  as  "  mes- 
sengers, watchmen,  heralds  of  salvation,  teachers,  rulers,  over- 
seers, shepherds,  and  elders." — See  "Bib.  Repertory,"  Jan.,  1845 

22.  In  what  sense  are  all  believers  'priests? 

Although  there  can  not  be  in  the  Christian  church  any  class 
of  priests  standing  between  their  brethren  and  Christ,  yet  in 
consequence  of  the  union,  both  federal  and  vital,  which  every 
Christian  sustains  to  Christ,  which  involves  fellowship  with 
him  in  all  of  his  human  graces,  and  in  all  of  his  mediatorial 
functions  and  prerogatives,  every  believer  has  part  in  the  priest- 
hood of  his  head  in  such  a  sense  that  he  has  immediate  access 
to  God  through  Christ,  even  into  the  holiest  of  all,  Heb.  x. 
19-22;  and  that  being  sanctified  and  spiritually  qualified,  he 
may  there  offer  up,  as  a  "holy  priest,"  a  "royal  priest,"  spiritual 
sacrifices,  not  expiatory,  but  the  oblation  of  praise,  supplication, 
and  thanksgiving,  through  Jesus  Christ,  and  intercession  for 
living  friends,  Heb.  xiii.  15 ;  1  Tim.  ii.  1,  2 ;  1  Pet.  ii.  5,  9. 

They  are  by  equal  reason  also  prophets  and  kings  in  fellow- 
ship with  Christ. — 1  John  ii.  20 ;  John  xvi.  13 ;  Rev.  i.  6,  and  v.  10. 

Authoritative  Statements. 

Catholic  Doctrine  of  the  Christian  Priesthood. — "  Council  of  Trent," 
Sess.  23,  ch.  1. — "Sacrifice  and  priesthood  are,  by  the  ordinance  of 
God,  in  such  wise  conjoined,  as  that  both  have  existed  in  every  law. 
Whereas,  therefore,  in  the  New  Testament,  the  Catholic  Church  has 
received,  from  the  institution  of  Christ,  the  holy  visible  sacrifice  of  the 
Eucharist;  it  must  needs  also  be  confessed,  that  there  is,  in  that  church, 
a  new,  visible,  and  external  priesthood,  into  which  the  old  has  been 
translated.  And  the  sacred  Scriptures  show,  and  the  traditions  of  the 
Catholic  Church  has  always  taught,  that  this  priesthood  was  instituted 
by  the  same  Lord  our  Saviour,  and  that  to  the  apostles,  and  their  suc- 
cessors in  the  priesthood,  was  the  power  delivered  of  consecrating,  offer- 
ing, and  administering  his  body  and  blood,  as  also  of  forgiving  and  of 
retaining  sins. " 

Protestant  Doctrine. — "  Conf.  Helv."  ii.  cap.  18. — "  The  priestly  office 
and  the  ministerial  office  differ  exceedingly  from  each  other.  The  for- 
mer is  common  to  all  Christians,  the  latter  is  not In  the 


400  MEDIATORIAL    OFFICE    OF   CHRIST. 

New  Testament  of  Christ  there  is  no  more  such  a  priesthood  as  that 
which  existed  among  the  ancient  people,  which  had  an  external  unction, 
sacred  vestments,  and  numerous  ceremonies,  which  were  types  of  Christ, 
who  by  coming  and  fulfilling  them  has  abrogated  all  these  things.  But 
he  remains  eternally  the  only  priest,  and  lest  we  should  derogate  aught 
from  him,  we  give  the  name  of  priest  to  none  of  the  class  of  ministers. 
For  our  Lord  himself  has  not  ordained  in  the  church  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment any  priests  to  offer  daily  the  sacrifice  of  his  body  and  blood  .  .  . 
but  only  ministers  to  preach  and  to  administer  the  sacraments. " 

Socinian  Doctrine  as  to  the  Mediatorial  Offices  of  Christ. — The  Racovian 
Catechism  teaches  that  Christ  is  both  Prophet,  Priest,  and  King.  But  it 
occupies  one  hundred  and  eighty  pages  (Section  v.)  in  discussing  his 
Prophetical  office,  and  only  eleven  pages  (Section  vi.)  in  discussing  his 
Priestly,  and  nine  pages  (Section  vii.)  his  Kingly  office.  His  death  and 
the  manner  in  which  it  contributes  to  our  salvation  is  discussed  (Sec.  v. 
ch.  8.)  under  the  head  of  his  Prophetical  office,  while  his  Priestly  work, 
though  vaguely  stated,  is  made  to  consist  chiefly  in  his  appearing  in 
heaven  as  our  advocate,  his  intercession  being  rendered  prevalent  with 
God  by  his  virtues  and  sufferings  as  a  martyr. 


CHAPTER    XXV. 

THE  ATONEMENT:    ITS    NATURE,    NECESSITY,    PERFECTION,    AND 

EXTENT. 

I.  The  Nature  of  the  Atonement. 

1.  Define  the  usage  and  true  meaning  of  the,  different  terms  used 
in  the  discussion  of  this  topic. 

1st.  The  present  word  used  to  designate  the  precise  nature 
of  Christ's  work  of  self-sacrifice  on  the  cross  is  "Atonement." 

In  the  Old  Testament,  it  is  used  frequently  to  translate  the 
Hebrew  word  1B3,  to  cover  by  an  expiatory  sacrifice.  In  the 
English  New  Testament  it  occurs  but  once,  Rom.  v.  11,  and 
there  translates  the  Greek  word  xa.TaA.Xa.yij,  reconciliation.  Its 
proper  meaning  is  to  make  moral  or  legal  reparation  for  a  fault, 
or  injury.  In  its  Old  Testament  and  proper  theological  usage, 
it  expresses  not  the  reconciliation  effected  by  Christ,  but  that 
legal  satisfaction  which  is  the  ground  of  that  reconciliation. 

Its  sense  is  too  limited  to  express  adequately  the  full  nature 
of  Christ's  work  as  our  Substitute,  because  while  it  properly 
denotes  the  expiation  of  guilt  effected  by  suffering  the  penalty 
of  sin,  it  fails  entirely  to  express  the  fact  that  Christ  also 
merited  for  us  the  positive  reward  of  eternal  life  by  his  active 
obedience. 

2d.  The  old  word  used  by  the  divines  of  the  seventeenth 
century  was  "  Satisfaction."  This  accurately  and  adequately 
expresses  what  Christ  did.  As  the  Second  Adam  he  satisfied 
all  the  conditions  of  the  broken  covenant  of  works,  as  left  by 
the  first  Adam,  (a.)  He  suffered  the  penalty  of  transgression. 
(6.)  He  rendered  that  obedience  which  was  the  condition  of 
"  life." 

3d.  The  distinction  between  a  penal  and  a  pecuniary  satisfac- 
tion. The  first  concerns  crime  and  person,  the  other  concerns 
debt  and  things.  They  differ.  (1.)  In  crime  the  demand  ter- 
minates upon  the  person  of  the  criminal;  in  debt  upon  the 
thing  due.  (2.)  In  crime  the  demand  is  for  that  kind,  degree, 
and  duration  of  suffering  that  enlightened  reason  discerns  to  be 


402  THE  ATONEMENT:  ITS  NATURE,  ETC. 

demanded  by  justice ;  in  debt  the  demand  is  precisely  and  only 
for  the  thing  due,  an  exact  quid  pro  quo.  (3.)  In  crime  a  vica- 
rious suffering  of  the  penalty  is  admissable  only  at  the  abso- 
lute discretion  of  the  sovereign ;  and  the  consequent  release  of 
the  criminal  is  a  matter  of  grace ;  in  debt  the  payment  of  the 
thing  due,  by  whomsoever  made,  ipso  facto  liberates,  and  its 
acceptance  and  the  release  of  the  debtor  is  no  matter  of  grace. 
(Turretin  L.  xiv.  Qs.  10). 

4th.  The  significance  of  the  term  Penalty  and  the  dis- 
tinction between  Calamities,  Chastisements,  and  Penal  Evils. 
Calamities  are  sufferings  considered  without  any  reference  to 
the  purpose  with  which  they  are  inflicted  or  permitted.  Chas- 
tisements are  sufferings  designed  for  the  moral  improvement 
of  the  sufferer.  Penal  evils  are  sufferings  inflicted  with  the 
design  of  satisfying  the  claims  of  justice  and  law.  "  Penalty  " 
is  that  kind  and  degree  of  suffering  which  the  supreme  legis- 
lator and  judge  determines  to  be  legally  and  justly  due  in  the 
case  of  any  specific  criminal.  If  these  sufferings  are  endured 
by  a  substitute,  they  are  no  less  the  penalty  of  the  law  if  they 
in  fact  satisfy  the  law.  The  nature  and  degree  of  the  suffer- 
ings may  be  changed  justly  with  the  change  of  the  person 
suffering,  but  the  character  of  the  sufferings  as  penalty  remains, 
or  the  substitution  fails. 

5th.  The  meaning  of  the  terms  Substitution  and  Vicarious. 
Substitution  is  the  gracious  act  of  a  sovereign  in  allowing  a 
person  not  bound  to  discharge  a  service,  or  to  suffer  a  punish- 
ment in  the  stead  of  a  person  who  is  bound.  The  discharge  of 
that  service,  and  the  suffering  of  that  penalty  by  the  substitute, 
and  therefore  the  services  and  sufferings  themselves,  are  strictly 
vicarious,  that  is  in  the  stead  of  (vice)  as  well  as  in  the  behalf 
of  the  person  originally  bound. 

6th.  Expiation  and  Propitiation.  Both  these  words  represent 
the  Greek  word  iA.ddxs6Bai.  When  construed,  as  it  constantly 
is  in  the  classics,  with  rdv  6e6v  and  rous  dsovs  it  means  to  propi- 
tiate for  sin,  by  sacrificial  atonement.  In  the  New  Testament 
it  is  construed  with  ra'S  a//apr/a?  (Heb.  ii.  17),  and  signifies  to 
expiate  the  guilt  of  sin.  Expiation  has  respect  to  the  bearing 
which  satisfaction  has  upon  sin  or  the  sinner.  Propitiation  has 
respect  to  the  effect  of  satisfaction  in  thus  removing  the  judicial 
displeasure  of  God. 

7th.  Impetration  and  Application.  Impetration  signifies  the 
purchase,  or  meritorious  procurement  by  sacrifice,  of  that  salva- 
tion which  God  provides  for  his  own  people,  and  Application 
signifies  its  subsequent  application  to  them  in  the  process  com- 
mencing with  Justification  and  Regeneration,  and  ending  in 
Glorification. 


DEFINITION   OF    TERMS.  403 

8th.  The  usage  as  to  Atonement  and  Redemption.  (1.)  Dur- 
ing the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries,  the  words  Redemp- 
tion and  Atonement  were  used  by  all  parties,  Calvinist  and 
Arminian,  as  equivalent,  as  in  Baxter's  and  Dr.  Isaac  Barrow's 
treatises  on  "Universal  Redemption "  (See  Dr.  Cunningham's 
"  Hist.  Theo.,"  Vol.  2,  p.  327,  and  Dr.  H.  B.  Smith  in  Hagen- 
bach,  "  Hist,  Doc,"  Vol.  2,  pp.  356  and  357).  Also  "  Conf.  of 
Faith,"  ch.  8,  §  1,  and  "L.  Cat,"  Q.  59.  (2.)  In  modern  times 
some  Calvinistic  advocates  of  an  indefinite  atonement  distin- 
guish between  the  terms  thus.  Atonement,  or  the  sacrificial 
impetration  of  salvation,  they  claim  to  be  made  indefinitely  for 
all  men.  Redemption,  which  they  understand  to  include  the 
intended  application  as  well  as  the  impetration  of  salvation, 
they  hold  to  be  confined  to  the  elect  (Dr.  W.  B.  Weeks,  in 
"  Park's  Atonement,"  p.  579). 

(3.)  In  the  Scriptures  Atonement  (Dn23 — zAad/zos)  signifies 
the  expiation  of  guilt  by  means  of  a  -poena  vicaria  in  order 
to  propitiate  God.  But  the  Scriptural  usage  of  Redemption 
(ctTtoXvTpaidis)  is  less  definite  and  more  comprehensive.  It  sig- 
nifies deliverance  from  loss  or  from  ruin  by  the  payment  for  us 
of  a  ransom  by  our  substitute.  Hence  it  may  signify  either 
(a)  the  act  of  one  substitute  in  paying  that  ransom,  when  it  is 
precisely  equivalent  to  Atonement  (Gal.  iii.  13) ;  or,  (b)  it  may 
mean  our  consequent  deliverance  from  some  particular  element 
of  our  lost  condition,  as  "  death,"  or  the  "  devil "  (Col.  ii.  15 ; 
Hosea  xiii.  14) ;  or,  our  complete  investiture  with  the  full  sal- 
vation thereby  secured  (Eph.  i.  14;  and  iv.  30;  Rom.  viii.  23,  etc.) 

9th.  Meritcm  and  Satisfactio.  This  distinction  was  first  sig- 
nalized by  Thomas  Aquinas  (fl274),  "  Summa  Theologian,"  Pars, 
iii.,  Q.  48,  49.  Christ  as  the  Second  Adam  fulfils  in  our  behalf 
all  the  conditions  of  the  broken  Covenant  of  Works.  "Satisfac- 
tio" expresses  the  quality  and  effect  of  his  entire  earthly  work 
of  suffering  obedience  even  unto  death  regarded  as  a  suffering 
of  the  penalty,  in  order  to  the  release  therefrom  of  his  people. 
"  Meritum  "  expresses  the  quality  and  effect  of  the  same  work 
regarded  as  the  rendering  of  that  obedience  which  was  for 
them  the  condition  of  life.  In  Protestant  theology  this  dis- 
tinction is  expressed  by  the  terms  active  and  passive  obedience, 
or  the  one  vicarious  work  of  Christ,  viewed  (a)  as  a  suffering  of 
penal  evils,  (b)  viewed  as  obedience  to  covenant  requirements. 

2.  State  the  difference  between  the  "natural,"  the  "federal"  and 
the  "penal"  relations  which  men  sustain  to  the  divine  law. 

1st.  Every  moral  agent  is  brought  at  the  moment  of  crea- 
tion, in  consequence  of  his  nature,  necessarily  under  obligation 


404  THE   ATONEMENT:   ITS  NATUHE,    ETC. 

to  be  conformed  in  state  and  act  to  the  divine  law  of  absolute 
moral  perfection,  any  want  of  conformity  to  which  is  sin.  Thia 
relation  is  "natural,"  perpetual,  inalienable,  and  incapable  of 
being  assumed  by  one  person  in  place  of  another,  or  representa- 
tively sustained. 

2d.  It  pleased  God  graciously  to  place  man  at  his  creation 
under  a  special  covenant,  in  which,  upon  condition  of  perfect 
obedience  under  a  special  test,  and  favorable  conditions,  for  a 
limited  period,  he  promised  to  endow  the  race  with  "eternal 
life,"  including  establishment  in  an  indefectable,  holy  character, 
and  a  heavenly  inheritance  forever.  The  penalty  of  instant 
"death"  being  the  alternative.  This  is  the  "federal"  relation 
to  law,  in  which  originally  the  whole  race  fell,  represented  by 
Adam,  and  in  which  subsequently  the  elect  are  made  to  stand, 
represented  by  Christ. 

3d.  By  the  fall  of  Adam  all  men  are  brought  into  "  penal " 
relation  to  the  law,  from  which  the  elect  are  relieved,  since  it 
has  been  voluntarily  assumed  in  their  behalf  by  Christ. 

3.  Wliat  is  Antinomianism  ?  And  sJiow  thai  this  abominable 
heresy  is  in  no  degree  involved  in  the  common  doctrine  of  tlie,  Prot- 
estant B,eformers  and  their  followers. 

"  Antinomianism,"  as  the  word  imports,  is  the  doctrine  that 
Christ  has  in  such  a  sense  fulfilled  all  the  claims  of  the  moral 
law  in  behalf  of  all  the  elect,  or  of  all  believers,  that  they  are 
released  from  all  obligations  to  fulfil  its  precepts  as  a  stand- 
ard of  character  and  action.  This  horrible  doctrine,  slander- 
ously charged  against  Paul,  is  repudiated  by  him. — Rom.  iii.  8, 
and  vi.  1. 

In  their  natural  reaction  from  the  Papal  doctrine  of  work- 
righteousness,  Luther  and  Melanchthon  at  first  used  some  un- 
guarded expressions  which  seem  to  suggest  this  heresy.  But 
their  entire  theological  system,  the  spirit  of  their  lives,  and  the 
body  of  their  writings,  are  as  far  as  possible  removed  froni  it. 
When  real  Antinomianism  was  consistently  taught  by  John 
Agricola  (fl56G),  he  was  strenously  opposed  and  successfully 
refuted  by  Luther,  and  caused  to  retreat.  Some  hyper-Calvin- 
ists  in  the  17th  century,  in  England,  e.  g.,  Dr.  Crisp,  rector  of 
Brinkworth  (fl642),  are  charged  with  it,  though  they  denied 
the  inferences  put  by  others  upon  their  doctrine.  It  has  often 
been  ignorantly  or  maliciously  charged  upon  Calvinism  as  a 
necessary  inference  by  Arminians.  As  a  tendency  it  naturally 
besets  the  human  heart  when  religious  enthusiasm  is  unquali- 
fied by  Scriptural  knowledge  and  real  sanctification,  and  is  one 
to  which  ignorant  fanatics  and  all  classes  of  perfectionists  are 
liable  to  be  betrayed. 


HIS   ACTIVE    AND    PASSIVE    OBEDIENCE.  405 

It  is  evident  that  the  doctrines  of  satisfaction  by  Christ,  and 
of  justification  by  the  imputation  of  his  righteousness,  as  held 
by  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed  Churches,  have  nothing*  in 
common  with  Antinomianism.  Because  they  teach — (1.)  That 
Christ  discharges  for  his  people  only  the  federal  and  penal 
obligations  of  the  law,  and  that  his  obedience  and  suffering  in 
tJiat  relation  constitute  his  righteousness,  which  is  imputed. 
(2.)  That  the  very  end  of  his  satisfaction  is  to  "redeem  us 
from  all  iniquity  and  purify  unto  himself  a  peculiar  people, 
zealous  of  good  works." — Titus  ii.  14.  (3.)  Believers  remain 
under  the  "natural"  relation  to  the  law,  which  is  personally 
untransferable,  in  which  they  will  be  gradually  perfected  by 
that  sanctification  which  the  righteousness  of  Christ  impetrates 
for  them. — See  "  Vindication  of  Luther,"  by  Julius  C.  Hare. 

4.  Show  how  the  perfect  satisfaction  of  Christ  embraces  both  his 
"active"  and  his  "passive"  obedience,  and  the  relation  ivhich  each 
of  these  elements  sustains  to  our  justification. 

Christ,  although  a  man,  was  a  divine  person.  As  such  he 
voluntarily  "was  made  under  the  law,"  and  all  his  earthly  obe- 
dience to  the  law  under  human  conditions  was  as  vicarious  as 
his  sufferings.  His  "active"  obedience  embraces  his  entire  life 
and  death  viewed  as  vicarious  obedience.  His  "  passive  "  obe- 
dience embraces  his  entire  life,  and  especially  his  sacrificial 
death,  viewed  as  vicarious  suffering. 

Adam  represented  the  race  under  the  original  gracious 
covenant  of  works.  He  fell,  forfeiting  the  "eternal  life"  con- 
ditioned on  obedience,  and  incurring  the  penalty  of  death  condi- 
tioned upon  disobedience.  Christ,  the  second  Adam,  assumes 
the  covenant  in  behalf  of  his  elect  just  as  Adam  left  it.  He 
(a)  discharges  the  penalt}^ — "the  soul  that  sinneth  it  shall  die," 
and  (b)  earns  the  reward — "  he  that  doeth  these  things  shall 
live  by  them."  His  whole  vicarious  suffering  obedience,  or 
obedient  suffering  is  one  righteousness.  As  "passive"  obedi- 
ence it  "  satisfies  "  the  penal  demand  of  the  law.  As  "  active  " 
obedience  it  merits  for  us  eternal  life  from  regeneration  to 
glorification.  The  imputation  of  this  righteousness  to  us  is 
our  justification. 

5.  State  the  true  doctrine  of  Christ 's  Satisfaction. 

1st.  Negatively.  (1.)  The  sufferings  of  Christ  were  not  a 
substitute  for  the  infliction  of  the  penalty  of  the  law  upon 
sinners  in  person,  but  they  are  the  penalty  itself  executed  on 
their  Substitute.  (2.)  It  was  not  of  the  nature  of  a  pecuniary 
payment,  an  exact  quid  pro  quo.  But  it  was  a  strict  penal  sat- 
isfaction, the  person  suffering  being  a  substitute.     (3.)  It  was 


40G  THE  ATONEMENT:   ITS  NATURE,   ETC. 

not  a  mere  example  of  a  punishment.  (4.)  It  was  not  a  mere 
exhibition  of  love,  or  of  heroic  consecration. 

2d.  Positively.  (1.)  Its  Motive  was  the  ineffable  love  of  God 
for  the  elect. — John  x.  15 ;  Gal.  ii.  20. 

(2.)  As  to  its  Nature,  (a.)  Being  a  divine  Person  he  assumed 
the  legal  responsibilities  of  his  people  under  the  conditions  of  a 
human  being.  (6.)  He  obeyed  and  suffered  as  their  Substitute. 
His  obedience  and  suffering  were  vicarious,  (c.)  The  guilt,  or 
just  legal  responsibility  of  our  sins,  were  imputed  to  him,  i.  e., 
charged  upon  and  punished  in  him.  (d.)  He  did  not  suffer 
the  same  sufferings  either  in  kind,  degree,  or  duration,  which 
would  have  been  inflicted  on  them,  but  he  did  suffer  precisely 
that  suffering  which  divine  justice  demanded  of  his  person 
standing  in  their  stead,  (e.)  His  sufferings  were  those  of  a 
divine  Person  in  a  human  nature. 

(3.)  As  to  its  Effects,  (a.)  It  was  the  effect  not  the  cause 
of  God's  love.  It  satisfied  his  justice  and  rendered  the  exercise 
of  his  love  consistent  with  his  righteousness,  (b.)  It  expiated 
the  guilt  of  sin,  and  reconciled  God  to  us  as  a  righteous  Ruler, 
(c.)  It  secured  the  salvation  of  those  for  whom  he  died,  pur- 
chasing the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  means  of  grace,  and 
the  application  and  consummation  of  salvation,  (d.)  It  did  not 
ipso  facto  liberate,  as  a  pecuniary  satisfaction,  but  as  a  vicari- 
ous penal  satisfaction  its  benefits  accrue  to  the  persons,  at  the 
times,  and  under  the  conditions,  prescribed  by  the  covenant 
between  the  Father  and  the  Son.  Its  application  is  a  matter 
of  right  to  Christ,  but  of  grace  to  us.  (e.)  Being  an  execution 
in  strict  justice  of  vicarious  punishment  it  is  a  most  effective 
and  real  example  of  punishment  to  the  moral  universe.  (/.)  Be- 
ing an  exercise  of  amazing  love  it  produces  legitimately  the 
most  profound  moral  impression,  melting  the  heart,  subduing 
the  rebellion,  and  dissipating  the  fears  of  convinced  sinners. 

Biblical  Proof  of  the  Doctrine. 

6.  State  the  argument  in  support  of  this  doctrine  derived  from 
the  nature  of  divine  justice. 

It  is  obvious  that  God  punishes  sin,  either  (1)  because  of  its 
intrinsic  ill-desert,  which  is  opposed  to  the  essential  and  immuta- 
ble rectitude  of  his  nature ;  or,  (2)  because  of  the  injury  it  does 
his  creatures,  from  a  principle  of  wise  benevolence  prompting 
him  to  restrain  it  by  furnishing  deterring  motives;  or,  (3)  from 
pure  sovereignty. 

But  we  have  before  proven  (See  above,  Ch.  VIII.,  Q.  59-66) — 
(1.)  That  the  moral  perfection  of  God  is  essential  and  funda- 
mental, and  not  a  product  of  his  self-determination.     (2.)  That 


DOCTRINE    PROVED.  407 

his  essential  moral  perfection  includes  a  principle  of  justice 
which  makes  the  punishment  of  sin  an  end  in  itself.  (3).  That 
virtue,  and  especially  justice,  can  not  be  resolved  into  disinter- 
ested benevolence. 

The  essential  attributes  of  benevolence  and  justice  do  not 
conflict.  Justice  is  free  but  not  optional.  Benevolence  to  the 
undeserving  is  grace,  which  is  essentially  optional. 

7.  State  the  proof  derived  from  the  immutability  of  the  divine 
law,  and  from  the  absolute  truth  of  God. 

The  will  of  God  is  freely  determined  by  his  nature.  His 
law  including  precept  and  penalty  is  the  expression  and  reve- 
lation at  once  of  his  nature  and  his  will.  As  far  as  the  law 
represents  his  nature  and  purpose  it  must  be  immutable.  As 
far  as  it  is  a  revelation  of  that  purpose,  its  immutability  is 
pledged  by  his  inviolable  truth. 

But — 1st.  God  has  declared  that  his  law  is  immutable,  Luke 
xvi.  17,  i.  e.,  his  revealed  law  in  all  its  elements,  if  the  cere- 
monial, a  fortiori  the  moral  law.  2d.  It  is  declared  that  Christ 
came  to  fulfil  and  not  to  suspend  or  abate  the  law. — Matt.  v. 
17,  18;  Rom.  x.  4,  and  iii.  31.  3d.  It  is  affirmed  that  God  will 
punish  sin. — Gen.  ii.  17;  Ezek.  xviii.  4;  Eom.  iii.  26. 

8.  Shoiv  that  the  Scriptures  teach  that  Christ  suffered  as  our 
Substitute  in  the  definite  sense  of  that  term. 

A  substitute  is  one  appointed  or  accepted  to  act  or  to  suffer 
in  the  stead  of  another,  and  his  actions  or  sufferings  are  vicari- 
ous. That  Christ  obeyed  and  suffered  as  the  substitute  of  his 
people  is  proved — 1st.  The  preposition  vitsp  with  the  genitive 
signifies  "instead  of"  (John  xi.  50;  2  Cor.  v.  20;  Philem.  13), 
and  this  construction  is  used  to  set  forth  the  relation  of  Christ's 
work  to  us.— 2  Cor.  v.  14  and  21;  Gal.  iii.  13;  1  Pet.  iii.  18. 
2d.  The  preposition  avri  definitely  and  always  expresses  sub- 
stitution (Winer,  "N.  T.  Gram.,"  Pt.  3,  §  47).— Matt.  ii.  22;  v.  38. 
This  is  rendered  more  emphatic  by  being  associated  with  Xvrpov, 
ransom,  redemption  price.  Christ  came  as  a  ransom  in  the  stead 
of  many. — Matt.  xx.  28 ;  Mark  x.  45 ;  1  Tim.  ii.  6.  Christ  is  called 
dvviXvrpov,  %.  e.,  substitutionary  ransom.  3d.  The  same  is  proved 
by  what  the  Scriptures  teach  as  to  our  sins  being  "  laid  upon  " 
Christ. — See  below,  Q.  9.  4th.  And  by  what  the  Scriptures 
teach  as  to  the  nature  of  sacrifices,  and  the  sacrificial  character 
of  Christ's  work. — See  below,  Qs.  10  and  1 1. 

9.  Do  tlue  same  ivith  regard  to  those  passages  ivhich  speak  of 
our  sins  being  "laid  upon''  Christ,  and  of  his  "bearing1  sin  <n 
iniquity. 


408  THE   ATONEMENT:   ITS  NATURE,   ETC. 

Sin  may  be  considered  (1)  in  its  formal  nature  as  "  trans- 
gression of  law,"  1  John  iii.  4;  or,  (2)  as  a  moral  quality  in- 
herent in  the  agent  (macula),  Rom.  vi.  11-13;  or,  (3)  in  respect 
to  its  legal  obligation  to  punishment  (reatus).  In  this  last 
sense  alone  is  it  ever  said  that  the  sin  of  one  is  laid  upon  or 
borne  by  another. 

1st.  To  impute  sin  is  simply  to  charge  it  to  one's  account 
as  the  ground  of  punishment.  (1.)  The  Hebrew  word  2t'n  means 
to  estimate,  count,  credit,  impute  as  belonging  to. — Gen.  xxxi. 
15;  Lev.  vii.  18;  Num.  xviii.  27;  Ps.  cvi.  31.  (2.)  The  same  is 
true  with  regard  to  the  Greek  word  Xoy/Zo/iat. — Is.  liii.  12; 
Rom.  ii.  26;  iv.  3-9;  2  Cor.  v.  19.  (3)  The  Scriptures  assert 
that  our  sins  are  imputed  to  Christ. — Mark  xv.  28 ;  Is.  liii.  6 
and  12;  2  Cor.  v.  21;  Gal.  iii.  13. 

2d.  (1.)  The  Hebrew  word  ??p  has  the  precise  sense  of  bear- 
ing, not  bearing  away,  or  removing,  but  in  the  sense  of  carrying. 
Lam.  v.  7.  This  is  applied  to  Christ's  bearing  our  sins. — Is.  liii.  11. 
(2.)  Also  Kbr?  has  the  sense,  when  construed  with  "sin,"  of  bear- 
ing sin  in  the  sense  of  being  "penally  responsible"  for  it. — Num. 
xxx.  15;  Lev.  v.  17, 18;  xvi.  22.  (3.)  The  Septuagint  translates 
these  words  sometimes  by  aipoo,  to  bear,  and  sometimes  by  cpipoo 
and  dvacpipa),  which  always  means  in  this  connection  to  bear 
on  ones  self  in  order  to  bear  away. — Robinson,  "  Lex."  Compare 
Matt.  viii.  17  with  Is.  liii.  4. 

10.  Show  that  the  Jewish  Sacrifices  were  vicarious  sufferers  of 
tJie  penalties  to  which  the  offerers  were  exposed,  and  that  they  were 
in  tlie  strict  sense  typical  of  the  Sacrifice  of  Christ. 

It  is  admitted  by  all  that  sacrifices  prevailed  among  all 
heathen  nations  from  the  earliest  times,  and  that  they  were 
designed  to  propitiate  offended  justice. 

I.  That  victims  of  the  Jewish  bloody  sacrifices  vicariously 
suffered  the  penalty  due  the  sins  of  the  offenders  is  proved — 
1st.  From  their  occasion. — Lev.  iv.  1 — vi.  13.  This  was  some 
sin,  including  moral  as  well  as  ceremonial  transgressions. 

2d.  From  the  qualifications  of  the  victims.  They  must  be  the 
highest  class  of  clean  animals  intimately  associated  with  man, 
e.  g.,  sheep,  bullocks,  goats,  pigeons,  the  individuals  selected  to 
be  the  most  perfect  of  their  kind,  as  to  age,  sex,  and  physical 
condition. — Lev.  xxii.  20-27;  Ex.  xxii.  30,  and  xxix.  1. 

3d.  From  the  ritual  of  the  sacrifice  itself.  This  included— 
(1.)  The  laying  on  of  hands,  with  confession  of  sins. — Lev.  i.  4; 
iii.  2;  iv.  4;  xvi.  21;  2  Chron.  xxix.  23.  This  act  always  in 
Scripture  expresses  transfer  from  the  person  imposing  to  the 
person  or  thing  upon  whom  the  hands  are  imposed;  c.  g.,  of 


DOCTRINE   PROVED.  409 

official  authority,  Deut.  xxxiv.  9 ;  Acts  vi.  6 ;  or  of  healing  vir- 
tue, Matt.  ix.  18;  Acts  ix.  12,  17;  or  of  sin,  Lev.  xvi.  7-22. 
Babbi  Aaron  Ben.  Chajim  says,  "  Where  there  is  no  confession 
of  sins  there  is  no  imposition  of  hands." — Outram,  "  De  Sacri- 
fices," D.  1.,  C.  xv.,  §§  8,  10,  11.  Hence  the  victim,  although 
perfect  in  itself,  was  always  called  nxt£>n  sin,  Lev.  iv.  3,  and 
DB>K  guilt,  Lev.  v.  6.  (2.)  The  slaying  of  the  victim.  It  was 
offered  by  the  sinner,  and  "  accepted  for  him  to  make  atone- 
ment for  him,"  Lev.  iv.,  and  then  executed,  "  for  it  is  the  blood 
that  maketh  an  atonement  for  the  soul." — Lev.  xvii.  11.  (3.) 
The  sprinkling  of  blood,  in  the  case  of  ordinary  sacrifices  on  tho 
horns  of  the  altar,  but  on  the  Day  of  Atonement  the  blood  of 
the  victim  offered  for  the  whole  people  was  carried  within  the 
veil  and  sprinkled  on  the  mercy-seat. — Lev.  iv.  5,  etc.  This 
signified  its  application  to  the  covering  of  sin,  and  its  accept- 
ance by  God. 

4th.  From  their  effect  which  was  always  forgiveness.  "And 
it  shall  be  forgiven  him"  was  the  constant  promise. — Lev.  iv. 
20-31 ;  vi.  30,  etc.  It  is  expressed  everywhere  by  the  Hebrew 
word  1S3,  to  cover  sin,  and  by  the  Greek  word  iXddHsdSai,  to  ex- 
piate or  propitiate. — See  Lev.  iv.  and  v.  chs. ;  Heb.  ii.  17.  The 
"  mercy-seat "  was  called  the  n^}D3»  i\ddr?/piov,  propitiator ium,  or 
seat  of  expiation. 

5th.  This  is  the  interpretation  of  these  rites  given  by  all 
learned  Jews  of  subsequent  ages. — See  Outram,  "De.  Sac,"  D.  1., 
Chs.  xx-xxii. 

II.  That  they  were  in  the  strict  sense  typical  of  the  sacrifice 
of  Christ  is  proved — 

1st.  They  are  expressly  called  "shadows"  of  which  Christ 
is  the  "body"  and  " patterns."— Heb.  ix.  13-24;  x.  1,  13;  xi.  12. 

2d.  Christ  affirms  that  the  laiv  as  well  as  the  prophets  spoke 
of  him  and  his  work. — John  i.  45;  v.  39*;  Luke  xxiv.  27. 

3d.  He  is  declared  to  be  "our  Passover  sacrificed  for  us." 
1  Cor.  v.  7  and  Luke  xxiv.  44.  Compare  Exodus  xii.  46  and 
Num.  ix.  12. 

4th.  He  is  declared  to  be  "sacrificed"  for  his  people,  by  his 
"blood"  being  made  a  sin-offering,  etc. — John  i.  29;  Heb.  ix.  26, 
28;  x.  12,  14;  1  Pet.  i.  19;  £ph.  v.  2;  2  Cor.  v.  21. 

5th.  He  is  everywhere  declared  to  accomplish  for  the  man 
who  comes  to  God  through  him  precisely  what  the  ancient 
sacrifices  did  on  a  lower  sphere. — Gal.  iii.  13;  Matt.  xx.  28; 
1  John  ii.  2,  and  iv.  10;  Rom.  iii.  24,  25,  and  v.  9,  10;  Eph.  i.  7, 
andii.  13;  Col.  i.  14-20. 

11.  Exhibit  the  argument  derived  from  the  fact  that  Christ  mad* 
satisfaction  for  his  people  as  their  High  Priest. 


4:10  THE  ATONEMENT :   ITS  NATURE,    ETC. 

I.  The  priest  was — 1st.  A  man  taken  from  among  men  to 
represent  them  in  things  pertaining  to  God. — Heb.  v.  1.  This 
was  especially  true  of  the  high  priest.  "  He  represented  the 
whole  people,  all  Israel  were  reckoned  as  being  in  him." 
Vitringa,  "Obs.  Sac,"  p.  292;  Ex.  xxviii.  9-29.  If  he  sinned 
it  was  regarded  as  the  sin  of  the  whole  people. — Lev.  iv.  3. 
He  wore  the  names  of  all  the  tribes  on  his  breastplate.  He 
placed  his  hands  upon  the  scape-goat  and  confessed  the  sin 
of  the  whole  people. — Lev.  xvi.  15-21. 

2d.  He  had  a  right  to  "bring  near"  to  God,  and  all  the 
people  had  access  to  God  only  through  the  priest,  especially 
the  High  Priest. — Num.  xvi.  5. 

3d.  This  the  priest  effected  by  propitiary  sacrifices  and  in- 
tercession.— See  above,  Ques.  10.     Heb.  v.  1-3;  Num.  vi.  22-27. 

II.  Christ  is  declared  to  save  his  people  in  the  character  of 
a  High  Priest.  1st.  He  is  expressly  asserted  both  in  the  Old 
Testament  and  in  the  New  to  be  a  Priest. — Ps.  ex.  4;  Zech. 
vi.  13;  Heb.  v.  6. 

2d.  He  possessed  all  the  qualifications  for  the  office.  (1.)  He 
was  chosen  from  among  men  to  represent  them.  —  Compare 
Heb.  v.  1,  2  with  Heb.  ii.  14-18  and  iv.  15.  (2.)  He  was  cho- 
sen of  God.  —  Heb.  v.  4-6.  (3.)  He  was  holy. — Heb.  vii.  26. 
(4.)  He  possessed  right  of  access  to  God. — Heb.  i.  3;  ix.  11-14. 

3d.  He  discharged  all  the  functions  of  a  priest.  —  Daniel 
ix.  24-26;  Eph.  v.  2;  Heb.  ix.  26;  x.  12;  1  John  ii.  1. 

4th.  The  instant  Christ's  work  was  accomplished  the  veil  of 
the  temple  was  rent  in  twain,  and  the  whole  typical  sacrificial 
system  was  discharged  as  functus  officio. — Matt,  xxvii.  50,  51. 

12.  Prove  the  truth  of  (lie  doctrine  as  to  the  nature  of  the  satis- 
faction of  Christ  above  stated  from  the  effects  zvhich  are  attributed 
to  it  in  Scripture. 

1st.  As  these  effects  respect  God  they  are  declared  to  be 
propitiation  and  reconciliation.  (1.)  iXadnetiOai  signifies  to  pro- 
pitiate an  offended  Deity  by  means  of  expiatory  sacrifice. — Heb. 
iL  17;  1  John  ii.  2,  and  iv.  10;  Kom.  iii.  25.  (2.)  "1M  in  respect 
to  sin  a  covering,  and  in  respect  to  God  propitiation.  It  is 
properly  translated  in  our  version  to  malce  atonement,  to  appease, 
to  pacify,  to  reconcile,  to  purge,  to  purge  awau,  Ezek.  xvi.  63; 
Gen.  xxxii.  20,  21;  Ps.  lxv.  3,  4;  lxxviii.  38;  1  Sam.  iii.  14;  Num. 
xxxv.  33 ;  to  ransom,  Ps.  xlix.  7 ;  to  make  satisfaction,  Num.  xxxv. 
31,  32.  (3.)  Ka.Ta\\d66Eiv,  to  reconcile — by  the  death  of  Christ, 
not  imputing  transgressions,  justifying  by  blood,  etc.,  Rom.  v. 
9,  10;  2  Cor.  v.  18-20. 

2d.  As  these  effects  respect  sin  they  are  declared  to  be  expi- 
ation.— Heb.  ii.  17;  1  John  ii.  2,  and  iv.  10;  Lev.  xvi.  6-16. 


ITS   NECESSITY.  411 

3d.  As  they  respect  the  sinner  himself  they  are  declared  to 
be  redemption,  that  is,  deliverance  by  ransom. — 1  Cor.  vii.  23; 
Kev.  v.  9;  Gal.  iii.  13;  1  Pet.  i.  18,  19;  1  Tim.  ii.  6;  Is.  li.  11, 
and  lxii.  12. 

Christ's  work  is  set  forth  in  the  same  sentences  as  («)  an 
expiatory  offering,  (b)  a  ransom  price,  (c)  a  satisfaction  to  the 
law.  Thus  we  are  redeemed  with  the  'precious  blood  of  Christ  as 
of  a  lamb  without  blemish  and  without  spot."  Christ  "gave  hit 
life  a  ransom  for  many."  He  "redeemed  lis  from  the  curse  of  the 
lata  being  made  a  curse  for  us."  God  "hath  made  him,  who  kneiv 
no  sin,  to  be  a  sin-offering  for  us  that  we  might  be  made  the  right' 
eousness  of  God  in  him."  Thus  Christ  is  not  said  to  be  a  sacri- 
fice and  a  ransom  and  a  bearer  of  the  curse  of  the  law,  but  that 
he  is  that  particular  species  of  sacrifice  which  is  a  ransom — 
that  his  redemption  is  of  that  nature  which  is  effected  by  his 
bearing  the  curse  of  the  law  in  our  stead,  and  that  he  redeems 
us  by  offering  himself  as  a  bleeding  sacrifice  to  God. 

13.  In  what  sense  and  on  what  grounds  was  tJie  satisfaction  ren- 
dered by  Christ  necessary?  and  hoio  does  the  true  answer  to  this 
question  confirm  the  orthodox  doctrine  as  to  its  nature  ? 

Since  the  salvation  of  men  is  a  matter  of  sovereign  grace, 
there  could  have  been  no  necessity  on  the  part  of  God  for  the 
provision  of  means  to  secure  it,  but  on  condition  of  God's  deter- 
mining to  save  sinners,  then  in  what  sense  was  the  satisfaction 
rendered  by  Christ  necessary  ? 

1st.  The  advocates  of  the  Socinian  or  Moral  Influence  The- 
ory say  that  it  was  necessary  only  contingently  and  relatively, 
as  the  best  means  conceivable  of  proving  the  love  of  God  and 
of  subduing  the  opposition  of  sinners. 

2d.  The  advocates  of  the  Governmental  Atonement  Theory 
hold  that  it  was  only  relatively  necessary  as  the  best  sin  deter- 
ring example  of  God's  determination  to  punish  sin. 

3d.  Some  Supralapsarians,  as  Dr.  Twisse,  prolocutor  of  the 
Westminster  Assembly,  in  order  to  exalt  the  sovereignty  of 
God,  held  that  it  was  only  hypotheticaUy  necessary,  i.  e.,  because 
God  had  sovereignly  determined  to  forgive  sin  on  no  other 
condition. 

4th.  The  true  view  is  that  it  was  absolutely  necessary  as  the 
only  means  possible  of  satisfying  the  justice  of  God  in  view  of 
the  pardon  of  sin.  The  grounds  of  an  absolute  necessity  on 
the  part  of  God,  can,  of  course,  only  be  found  in  the  immuta- 
ble righteousness  of  his  nature,  lying  behind  and  determining 
his  will. 

That  it  is  absolutely  necessary  is  proved — (1.)  If  salvation 
could  have  been  secured  otherwise  Christ  would  be  de«ad  in 


412  THE    ATONEMENT:    ITS   NATURE,    ETC. 

vain. — Gal.  ii.  21;  iii.  21.  (2.)  God  has  declared  that  his  gift 
of  Christ  is  the  amazing  measure  of  his  love  for  his  people.  If 
so,  of  course,  he  could  have  had  no  alternative,  otherwise  his 
love  would  not  be  the  cause  of  the  sacrifice. — Rom.  v.  8 ;  John 
iii.  16;  iv.  9.  (3.)  Paul  says  it  was  necessary  as  a  vindication 
of  God's  righteousness  in  view  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins  that 
were  past. — Rom.  iii.  25,  26. 

It  is  plain  that  if  the  necessity  for  the  satisfaction  was  abso- 
lute, it  must  have  had  its  ground  in  the  nature  of  God.  If  so, 
it  must  have  been  in  its  essence  a  satisfaction  of  the  justice  or 
essential  righteousness  of  that  nature.  But  a  satisfaction  of 
outraged  justice  is  penal  suffering. 

14.  Prove  that  Christ's  satisfaction  includes  his  "  active  "  as  iceU 
as  his  "passive  "  obedience. 

See  above,  Ques.  1,  §  8.  Christ  as  the  second  Adam  takes 
up  the  covenant  obligations  of  his  people  as  these  were  left  by 
the  fall  of  the  first  Adam.  The  sanctions  of  that  covenant 
were — (1.)  "The  man  that  doeth  these  things  shall  live  by 
them." — Lev.  xviii.  5,  comp.,  and  Rom.  x.  5,  and  Gal.  iii.  12,  and 
Matt.  xix.  17.  (2.)  The  penalty  of  death.  If  Christ  should 
only  suffer  the  penalty  of  death,  and  not  render  the  federal 
obedience  required  of  Adam,  it  would  necessarily  follow,  either 
(1)  God  would  alter  the  conditions  of  law  and  give  "  eternal 
life"  in  the  absence  of  the  condition  demanded;  or,  (2)  we  must 
continue  forever  destitute  of  it;  or,  (3)  we  must  start  where 
Adam  did  before  his  apostasy,  and  work  out  the  conditions  of 
the  covenant  of  works  in  our  own  persons.  This  last  would 
have  been  impossible,  and  therefore  Christ  by  his  obedience 
fulfilled  them  for  us. 

This  is  proven — 1st.  The  Scriptures  explicitly  declare  that 
he  not  only  suffered  the  penalty  but  also  meritoriously  secured 
for  us  "eternal  life,  the  "adoption  of  sons,"  and  an  "eternal 
inheritance." — Gal.  iii.  13,  14,  and  iv.  4,  5;  Eph.  i.  3-13,  and 
v.  25-27;  Rom.  viii.  15-17. 

2d.  It  is  expressly  said  that  he  saves  us  by  his  obedience  as 
well  as  by  his  suffering. — Rom.  v.  18,  19. 

15.  What  is  the  Church  doctrine  as  to  tlie  Perfection  of  Christ's 
Satisfaction  ? 

I.  As  to  its  intrinsic  justice-satisfying  value  it  has  been  held— 
1st.  By  Duns  Scotus  (fl308),  who  referred  the  necessity  of  the 
Atonement  to  the  will  and  not  to  the  nature,  that  "every 
created  oblation  avails  for  just  as  much  as  God  pleases  to 
accept  it."  He  graciously  pleases  to  accept  the  sufferings  of 
the  human  nature  of  Christ  as  sufficient,  on  the  principle  of 


ITS   PERFECTION.  413 

accepti  latio,  "  the  optional  taking  of  something  for  nothing,  or 
of  a  part  for  the  whole." 

2d.  Grotius  (fl645)  in  his  great  work,  "De  Salisfactione"  etc., 
held  that  as  the  law  was  a  product  of  the  divine  will,  God  had 
the  inalienable  prerogative  of  relaxing  it  (relaxatio),  and  that 
he  did  graciously  relax  it  in  accepting  in  the  sufferings  of 
Christ  something  different  and  less  than  the  demands  of  the 
law,  an  aliud  pro  quo,  not  a  quid  pro  quo. 

3d.  Limborch  and  Curcellaeus  (fl712  and  fl659)— "ApoL 
Theo.,"  iii.  21,  6,  and  "  Institutio  Rel.  Christ,"  vol.  v.,  chap, 
xix.,  §  5 — held  that  Christ  did  not  suffer  the  penalty  of  the 
law,  but  saves  us  as  a  sacrifice,  which  was  not  a  payment  of  a 
debt,  but  a  condition  graciously  estimated  as  sufficient  by  God, 
upon  which  he  graciously  remitted  the  penalty. 

4th.  The  Catholic,  Lutheran,  and  Keformed  Churches  have 
always  held  that  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  was  that  of  a  divine 
Person,  and  hence  (1)  was  superoqatory,  not  due  from  himself, 
and  free  to  be  credited  to  others,  (2)  was  of  infinite  value. 
From  the  time  of  Thomas  Aquinas  the  Catholic  Church  has 
held  that  it  is  of  superabundant  value.  Hence  they  satisfy  the 
claims  of  the  law  in  strict  rigor  of  justice. 

II.  As  to  its  intention  and  effect — 1st.  The  Reformed  Churches 
all  agree  in  opposition  to  the  Romanists,  Arminians,  and  advo- 
cates of  an  indefinite  atonement,  that  the  satisfaction  of  Christ 
is  perfect  in  the  sense  of  not  only  making  the  salvation  of 
those  for  whom  it  was  offered  possible,  but  of  meritoriously 
securing  its  own  application  to  them  and  their  certain  and 
complete  salvation. 

2d.  The  Romanists  hold  that  through  the  instrumentality  of 
baptism  the  merits  of  Christ  (1)  cancel  the  guilt  of  all  sins  orig- 
inal and  actual  preceding  baptism,  and  (2)  transmute  the  pen- 
alty of  all  post-baptismal  sins  from  eternal  death  to  temporal 
pains.  Nevertheless  persons  guilty  of  post-baptismal  sins  must 
expiate  them  by  penances  or  works  of  charity  in  this  world,  or 
in  the  next  by  the  pains  of  purgatory. — "Counc.  Trident," 
Sess.  14,  ch.  viii.,  and  Scss.  6,  can.  29  and  30. 

3.  Arminians  hold  that  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  makes  the 
salvation  of  all  men  possible,  and  secures  for  them  sufficient 
grace,  but  that  its  full  effect  is  suspended  on  the  condition 
of  their  free  choice. 

The  truth  of  the  Reformed  doctrine  is  proved  (1)  from  the 
fact  that  the  Scriptures  refer  the  removal  of  condemnation 
solely  to  the  death  of  Christ,  and  represent  all  sufferings  of 
believers  as  disciplinary. — Rom.  viii.  1-34  and  Heb.  xii.  5-11. 
(2.)  They  declare  that  the  blood  of  Christ  "cleanses  from  all 
sin,"  and  that  we  are  "complete  in  him"  who  "by  one  sacrifice,'' 


414  THE   ATONEMENT:    ITS   NATURE,   ETC. 

perfects  us. — Col.  ii.  10;  Heb.  x.  12-14;  1  John.  i.  7.  (3.)  Sal- 
vation is  conditioned  only  upon  trust  in  Christ's  work,  and  thia 
very  trust  (Taith)  is  itself  given  to  us  as  a  result  of  Christ's 
merits. — Epli.  ii.  7-10.  (4.)  We  have  above  proved  (Ques.  14) 
that  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  meritoriously  secures  actual  and 
complete  salvation  for  its  beneficiaries,  and  not  merely  the  pos- 
sibility of  salvation  upon  conditions.     See  also  below,  Ques.  21. 

16.  State  and  answer  the  objections  ivhich  have  been  urged 
against  the  truth  of  the  orthodox  doctrine. 

1st.  It  is  objected  by  Socinians  and  others  that  while  it  is 
an  imperative  duty  and  Christian  virtue  in  man  to  forgive 
offences  freely,  that  our  doctrine  ascribes  the  vice  of  vindictive- 
ness  to  God. 

We  answer. — (1.)  That  we  forgive  injuries  and  have  nothing 
to  do  with  the  punishment  of  sins,  while  God  punishes  sin,  and 
is  incapable  of  suffering  injury.  (2.)  We  have  proved  above, 
Ch.  VIII.,  Q.  53-58,  that  all  virtue  can  not  be  resolved  into 
benevolence,  and  that  justice  is  an  essential  attribute  of  God, 
and  that  sin  is  intrinsic  ill-desert. 

2d.  Socinus  and  others  maintained  that  if  sin  is  punished  it 
can  not  be  forgiven,  and  that  if  it  is  forgiven  it  can  not  be 
punished,  and  hence  our  doctrine  excludes  the  exercise  of  free 
grace  on  the  part  of  God  in  man's  salvation. 

We  answer. — (1.)  Free  grace  is  shown  in  the  sovereign 
admission  and  acceptance  by  God  of  Christ's  substitution. 
^2.)  In  the  sovereign  imputation  of  his  merits  to  the  individual 
sinner.  (3.)  That  the  infinite  freeness  of  the  love  of  God  and 
the  self-sacrificing  grace  of  Christ  is  a  thousand  times  more 
conspicuous  in  view  of  the  facts  that  men  were  righteously  con- 
demned, and  that  justice  inexorably  demanded  satisfaction  in 
the  self-humiliation  of  our  Substitute,  than  it  could  have  been 
in  any  merely  sovereign  relaxation  of  law,  or  by  any  simple 
forgiveness  upon  repentance. 

3d.  That  Christ  did  not  suffer  the  penalty  of  the  law,  because 
that  included  essentially  (a)  remorse,  (b)  eternal  death. 

We  answer  that  the  penalty  of  the  law  is  essentially  simple 
divine  displeasure  involving  the  withdrawal  of  the  life-giving 
communion  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  in  the  case  of  every  crea- 
ture (a)  leads  to  spiritual  death,  (b)  hence  is  naturally  ever- 
lasting. Christ  suffered  this  displeasure  and  desertion,  Matt 
xxvii.  46,  but  being  a  divine  person  spiritual  death  was  impos- 
sible. He  suffered  precisely  that  kind  and  degree  and  duration 
of  pain  which  divine  wisdom,  interpreting  divine  justice,  re- 
quired in  a  divine  person  suffering  vicariously  the  penalty  of 
human  sin,  for  the  same  reason  the  temporal  suffering  of  one 


OBJECTIONS   STATED   AND   ANSWERED.  415 

divine  Person,  is  a  full  legal  equivalent  for  the  ill-desert  of  all 
mankind. 

4th.  The  objection  urged  by  Piscator  (Prof,  at  Herbom 
1584-1625)  and  others  against  the  recognition  of  the  active 
obedience  of  Christ  as  an  element  of  his  satisfaction.  (1.)  That 
the  law  made  obedience  and  penal  suffering  alternatives.  If 
the  precept  is  obeyed  the  penalty  should  not  be  inflicted. 
(2.)  That  Christ,  as  a  man,  needed  his  active  righteousness  for 
himself,  as  the  essential  qualification  of  his  personal  character. 

We  answer. — (1.)  As  shown  above,  Ques.  2  and  14.  Christ 
stood  as  our  Representative  in  our  federal  and  not  in  our  natural 
relation  to  law.  His  active  and  his  passive  obedience  have 
different  purposes,  the  former  merits  the  positive  rewards  con- 
ditioned on  obedience,  the  latter  merits  the  negative  blessing 
of  remission  of  penalty.  (2.)  Christ,  although  a  man,  was  a 
divine  person,  and  therefore  never  personally  subject  to  the 
Adamic  covenant  of  works.  He  was  essentially  righteous,  but 
he  was  made  under  the  law  only  as  our  representative,  and  his 
obedience  under  the  voluntarily  assumed  conditions  of  his  earthly 
life  was  purely  vicarious. 

5th.  It  is  objected  by  Arminians  and  others  that  the  doc- 
trine that  Christ  satisfies  in  our  behalf  the  preceptive  demands 
of  the  law  by  his  active  obedience,  as  well  as  the  penal  demands 
by  his  passive  obedience,  leads  to  Antinomianism. 

This  is  answered  above,  under  Ques.  3. 

6th.  It  is  objected  by  Socinus  (1539-1604)  and  by  all  the 
adversaries  of  the  orthodox  doctrine,  that  the  demands  of  justice 
for  penal  satisfaction  are  essentially  personal.  The  demand  of 
outraged  justice  is  specifically  for  the  punishment  of  the  person 
sinning.  How  then  can  the  demands  of  the  divine  nature  be 
satisfied  by  pains  inflicted  upon  a  person  arbitrarily  substituted 
in  the  place  of  the  criminal  by  the  divine  will?  How  can  the 
sufferings  of  an  innocent  man  take  the  place  in  the  eye  of 
justice  of  those  of  the  guilty  man. 

Answer. — The  substitution  of  Christ  in  the  stead  of  elect 
sinners  was  not  arbitrary.  He  made  satisfaction  for  them  as 
the  truly  responsible  Head  of  a  community,  constituting  one 
moral  person  or  corporate  body.  This  responsible  union  with 
his  people  was  constituted  (a)  by  his  own  voluntary  assump- 
tion of  their  legal  responsibilities,  (b)  by  the  recognition  of  his 
sponsorship  by  God,  the  source  of  all  law  in  the  universe,  (c)  by 
his  assumption  of  our  nature.  This,  at  least,  is  the  testimony 
of  revelation,  if  it  can  not  be  explained,  it  can  not  be  disproved 


416  THE    ATONEMENT:    ITS   NATURE,   ETC. 

The  Design  of  the  Atonement. 

17.  State  first  negatively,  and  then  positively,  the  true  doctrine 
as  to  the  design  of  the  Father  and  the  Son  in  providing  satisfaction. 

I.  Negatively — 1st.  There  is  no  debate  among  Christians 
as  to  the  sufficiency  of  that  satisfaction  to  accomplish  the  salva- 
tion of  all  men,  however  vast  the  number.  This  is  absolutely- 
limitless.  2d.  Nor  as  to  its  applicability  to  the  case  of  any  and 
every  possible  human  sinner  who  will  ever  exist.  The  relation? 
of  all  to  the  demands  of  the  law  are  identical.  What  would 
save  one  would  save  another.  3d.  Nor  to  the  bona  fide  char- 
actor  of  the  offer  which  God  has  made  to  "whomsoever  wills" 
in  the  gospel.  It  is  applicable  to  every  one,  it  will  infallibly 
be  applied  to  every  believer.  4th.  Nor  as  to  its  actual  applica- 
tion. Arminians  agree  with  Calvinists  that  of  adults  only  those 
who  believe  are  saved,  while  Calvinists  agree  with  Arminians 
that  all  dying  in  infancy  are  redeemed  and  saved.  5th.  Nor  is 
there  any  debate  as  to  the  universal  reference  of  some  of  the 
benefits  purchased  by  Christ.  Calvinists  believe  that  the  entire 
dispensation  of  forbearance  under  which  the  human  family  rest 
since  the  fall,  including  for  the  unjust  as  well  as  the  just  tem- 
poral mercies  and  means  of  grace,  is  part  of  the  purchase  of 
Christ's  blood.  They  admit  also  that  Christ  did  in  such  a  sense 
die  for  all  men,  that  he  thereby  removed  all  legal  obstacles  from 
the  salvation  of  any  and  every  man,  and  that  his  satisfaction 
may  be  applied  to  one  man  as  well  as  to  another  if  God  so  wills  it. 

II.  But  positively  the  question  is  what  was  the  design  of  the 
Father  and  Son  in  the  vicarious  death  of  Christ.  Did  they 
purpose  to  make  the  salvation  of  the  elect  certain,  or  merely 
to  make  the  salvation  of  all  men  possible  ?  Did  his  satisfaction 
have  reference  indifferently  as  much  to  one  man  as  to  another? 
Did  the  satisfaction  purchase  and  secure  its  own  application, 
and  all  the  means  thereof,  to  all  for  whom  it  was  specifically 
rendered?  Has  the  impetration  and  the  application  of  this 
atonement  the  same  range  of  objects?  Was  it,  in  the  order  of 
the  divine  purpose,  a  means  to  accomplish  the  purpose  of  elec- 
tion, or  is  the  election  of  individuals  a  means  to  carry  into 
effect  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  otherwise  inoperative  ? 

Our  Confession  answers — 

Ch.  viii.,  g  5. — "  The  Lord  Jesus,  by  his  perfect  obedience  and  sacri- 
fice of  himself,  .  .  .  purchased  not  only  reconciliation,  but  an  ever- 
lasting inheritance  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  for  all  those  whom  the 
Father  hath  given  unto  him.  "—Chapter  iii.,  \  6.  "As  God  hath  appointed 
the  elect  unto  glory,  so  hath  he,  by  the  eternal  and  most  free  purpose 
of  his  will,  foreordained  all  the  means  thereunto.  "Wherefore  they  that 
are  elected,  being  fallen  in  Adam,  are  redeemed  in  Christ.  .  .  .  Nei- 
ther are  any  other  redeemed  by  Christ    ....    but  the  elect  only. " 


ITS   DESIGN.  417 

Ch.  viii.,  \  8. — "To  Ann  those  for  whom  Christ  hath  purchased  re- 
demption, he  doth  certainly  and  effectually  apply  and  communicate  the 
same."— "Articles  of  Synod  of  Dort,"  Ch.  II.,  l\  1,  2,  8. 

The  design  of  Christ  in  dying  was  to  effect  what  he  actually 
does  effect  in  the  result.  1st.  Incidentally  to  remove  the  legal 
impediments  out  of  the  way  of  all  men,  and  render  the  salva- 
tion of  every  hearer  of  the  gospel  objectively  possible,  so  that 
each  one  has  a  right  to  appropriate  it  at  will,  to  impetrate  tem- 
poral blessings  for  all,  and  the  means  of  grace  for  all  to  whom 
they  are  providentially  supplied.  But,  2d,  Specifically  his  de- 
sign was  to  impetrate  the  actual  salvation  of  his  own  people, 
in  all  the  means,  conditions,  and  stages  of  it,  and  render  it  in- 
fallibly certain.  This  last,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  must 
have  been  his  real  motive.  After  the  manner  of  the  Augustin- 
ian  Schoolmen  Calvin,  on  1  John  ii.  2,  says,  "Christ  died  suf- 
ficiently for  all,  but  efficiently  only  for  the  elect." — So  Arch- 
bishop Ussher,  Numbers  22  and  23  of  Letters  published  by  his 
Chaplain,  Richard  Parr,  D.D. 

18.  State  the  Arminian  doctrine  on  this  subject. 

That  the  design  of  Christ  was  to  render  a  sacrificial  obla- 
tion in  behalf  of  all  men  indiscriminately,  by  which  "sufficient 
grace"  is  meritoriously  secured  for  each,  and  their  sins  ren- 
dered remissible  upon  the  terms  of  the  Evangelical  Covenant; 
i  e.,  upon  condition  of  faith. — Watson's  "Theo.  Institutes," 
Pt.  II.,  Ch.  xxv. 

19.  What  ivas  the  doctrine  of  the  u3farroiv  3fen"  in  Scotland? 

The  "Marrow  of  Modern  Divinity"  was  published  in  Eng- 
land, 1646,  and  republished  in  Scotland  by  James  Hog  of  Car- 
nock,  1726.  The  "  Marrow  Men  "  were  Hog,  Thomas  Boston, 
and  Ralph  and  Ebenezer  Erskine,  and  their  followers  in  the 
Secession  Church.  They  were  perfectly  orthodox  with  respect 
to  the  reference  of  the  atonement  to  the  elect.  Their  peculiar- 
ity was  that  they  emphasized  the  general  reference  of  the  atone- 
ment to  all  men.  They  said  Christ  did  not  die  for  all,  but  he 
is  dead  for  all,  i.  e.,  available.  "  God  made  a  deed  of  gift  and 
grant  of  Christ  unto  all  men."  They  distinguished  between 
his  "giving  love,"  which  was  universal,  and  his  "electing  love," 
which  was  special  ("Marrow  of  Mod.  Divinity").  Dr.  John 
Brown  said  before  the  Synod  of  the  United  Secession  Church, 
1845,  "  In  the  sense  of  the  Universalist,  that  Christ  died  so  as 
to  secure  salvation,  I  hold  that  he  died  only  for  the  elect.  In 
the  sense  of  the  Arminian,  that  Christ  died  so  as  to  purchase 
easier  terms  of  salvation,  and  common  grace  to  enable  men  to 
comply  with  those  terms,  I  hold  that  he  died  for  no  man.  Id 
27 


418  THE   ATONEMENT:    ITS   NATURE,    ETC. 

the  sense  of  the  great  body  of  Calvinists,  that  Christ  died  to 
remove  legal  obstacles  in  the  way  of  human  salvation  by  mak- 
ing perfect  satisfaction  for  sin,  I  hold  that  he  died  for  all  men  " 
("Hist,  of  Atonement  Controversy  in  Secess.  Church,"  by  Rev 
And.  Robertson). 

20.  State  the  doctrine  of  Amyraldus  of  the  French  ScJiool  of 
Saumur,  and  of  Baxter  in  England. 

This  scheme  of  Hypothetical  or  Conditional  Universalism 
holds  that  God  gave  his  Son  to  die  in  order  to  provide  redemp- 
tion for  all  men  indiscriminately,  suspending  its  actual  enjoy- 
ment upon  their  free  appropriation  of  it.  At  the  same  time 
he  sovereignly  wills  to  give  the  effectual  grace  which  deter- 
mines that  free  self-appropriation  only  to  the  elect. 

The  ordinary  Calvinistic  doctrine  logically  makes  the  de- 
cree to  provide  redemption  the  means  to  carry  into  effect  the 
decree  of  election.  The  French  and  Baxterian  view  makes  the 
decree  of  election  the  means  of  carrying  into  effect  so  far  forth 
the  general  purpose  of  redemption  (See  "  Universal  Redemp- 
tion of  Mankind  by  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  by  Richard  Baxter. 
Answered  by  John  Owen  in  his  "Death  of  Christ,"  etc.).  These 
"Novelties"  were  explained  away  before  the  French  Synod, 
1637,  and  virtually  condemned. 

21.  Exhibit  the  Biblical  evidence  upon  which  the  Calvinistic 
doctrine  as  to  the  "Design"  of  tJte  Atonement  rests. 

1st.  It  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  this  doctrine  alone  is  con 
eistent  with  the  Scriptural  doctrine  that  God  has  from  eternity 
sovereignly  elected  certain  persons  to  eternal  life,  and  to  all 
the  means  thereof.  It  is  evident  that  the  rendering  of  satis- 
faction specially  for  the  elect  is  a  rational  means  for  carrying 
the  decree  of  election  into  execution.  But,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  election  of  some  to  faith  and  repentance  is  no  rational  pro- 
vision for  executing  the  purpose  to  redeem  all  men.  R.  Wat- 
son ("Institutes,"  Vol.  II.,  p.  411)  says  that  the  view  of  Baxter, 
etc.,  "is  the  most  inconsistent  theory  to  which  the  attempts  to 
modify  Calvinism  have  given  rise."  It  is  plain  that  if  God  pur- 
posed that  the  elect  should  certainly  be  saved,  and  others  left 
to  the  just  consequences  of  their  sins,  Christ  could  not  have  de- 
signed the  benefits  of  his  death  indifferently  for  all  men. 

2d.  Its  design  is  shown  from  the  very  nature  of  the  atone- 
ment as  above  proved.  (1.)  Christ  expiated  our  sins  as  our  sub- 
stitute in  the  strict  sense.  But  a  substitute  represents  definite 
persons,  and  his  service,  when  accepted,  actually  discharges  the 
obligation  of  those  for  whom  it  was  rendered.  (2.)  Christ  being 
our  substitute  under  the  "covenant  of  works"  actually  and  per- 


CALVINISTIC   DOCTRINE    PROVED.  419 

fectly  satisfied  all  the  demands  of  the  covenant.  In  that  case 
the  terms  of  the  covenant  itself  provide  that  those  for  whom 
it  is  satisfied  must  enjoy  the  reward.  It  is  not  the  possibility 
of  life,  but  life  itself  that  is  promised. 

3d.  The  Scriptures  declare  everywhere  that  the  design  and 
legal  effect  of  Christ's  work  is  not  to  render  salvation  possible 
but  actually  to  save,  to  reconcile  God  and  not  to  render  him 
only  reconcilable. — Matt,  xviii.  11;  Rom.  v.  10;  2  Cor.  v.  21; 
Gal.  i.  4;  iii.  13;  Eph.  i.  7,  and  ii.  16. 

4th.  The  Scriptures  everywhere  teach  that  Christ  purchased 
faith,  repentance,  and  the  Holy  Spirit's  influences  by  his  death 
and  obedience.  Hence  he  must  have  purchased  them  for  those 
for  whom  he  suffered  and  obeyed,  and  they  can  not,  therefore, 
be  the  conditions  upon  which  the  enjoyment  of  the  benefits  of 
his  death  are  suspended.  "We  are  blessed  with  all  spiritual 
blessings  in  heavenly  things  in  Christy — Eph.  i.  3,  4.  The 
Holy  Ghost  is  "shed  on  us  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Saviour.' 
Titus  iii.  5,  6;  Gal.  iii.  13,  14;  Phil.  i.  29;  Titus  ii.  14;  Eph.  v. 
25-27;  1  Cor.  i.  30. 

5th.  Christ  died  in  execution  of  the  terms  of  an  eternal 
covenant  between  the  Father  and  himself.  This  is  certain — 
(1.)  Because  three  intelligent  eternal  Persons  must  have  always 
had  a  mutual  plan  comprehending  all  their  works,  prescribing 
their  several  parts  therein.  (2.)  The  Scriptures  often  refer  to 
this  covenant. — Ps.  lxxxix.  3,  4;  Is.  xlii.  6,  7,  and  liii.  10,  12. 
(3.)  Christ  made  constant  reference  to  it  while  executing  it. 
Luke  xxii.  29;  John  vi.  38,  and  x.  18.  (4.)  Christ  claims  its 
reward. — John  xvii.  4-9.  (5.)  And  speaks  of  those  who  had 
been  previously  given  him  by  his  Father. — John  x.  15-26. 
Then  he  must  have  died  specially  for  those  "whom  the  Fathei 
had  given  him." 

6th.  The  motive  for  his  self-sacrifice  is  always  declared  to 
be  the  highest  form  of  personal  love. — John  xv.  13 ;  Rom.  v.  8, 
and  viii.  32;  Gal.  ii.  20;  Eph.  iii.  18,  19;  1  John  iii.  16;  iv.  9,  10. 

7th.  The  doctrine  that  Christ  died  specifically  for  the  elect 
is  everywhere  stated  in  Scripture. — John  x.  11,  15;  Acts  xx.  28; 
Rom.  viii.  32-35 ;  Eph.  v.  25-27. 

22.  If  Christ  died  only  for  his  oivn  people,  on  what  ground  does 
the  general  offer  of  the  gospel  rest  ? 

"The  Lord  Jesus,  in  order  to  secure  the  salvation  of  his 
people,  and  with  a  specific  view  to  that  end,  fulfilled  the  con- 
dition of  the  law  or  covenant  under  which  they  and  all  man- 
kind were  placed.  These  conditions  were — (1)  perfect  obedi- 
ence ;  (2)  satisfaction  to  divine  justice.  Christ's  righteousness, 
therefore,  consists  of  his  obedience  and  death.    That  righteous* 


420  THE    ATONEMENT:    ITS   NATURE,    ETC. 

ness  is  precisely  what  the  law  demands  of  every  sinner  in  or- 
der to  justification  before  God.  It  is,  therefore,  in  its  nature 
adapted  to  all  sinners  who  were  under  that  law.  Its  nature 
is  not  altered  by  the  fact  that  it  was  wrought  out  for  a  portion 
only  of  such  sinners,  or  that  it  is  secured  to  them  by  the  cov- 
enant between  the  Father  and  the  Son.  What  is  necessary  for 
the  salvation  of  one  man  is  necessary  for  the  salvation  of  an- 
other and  of  all.  It  is  also  of  infinite  value,  being  the  right- 
eousness of  the  eternal  Son  of  God,  and  therefore  sufficient  for 
all."— Hodge's  "  Essays,"  pp.  181,  182. 

A  bona  fide  offer  of  the  gospel,  therefore,  is  to  be  made  to 
all  men — 1st.  Because  the  satisfaction  rendered  to  the  law  is 
sufficient  for  all  men.  2d.  Because  it  is  exactly  adapted  to  the 
redemption  of  all.  3d.  Because  God  designs  that  whosoever 
exercises  faith  in  Christ  shall  be  saved  by  him.  Thus  the 
atonement  makes  the  salvation  of  every  man  to  whom  it  is 
offered  objectively  possible.  The  design  of  Christ's  death  being 
to  secure  the  salvation  of  his  own  people,  incidentally  to  the 
accomplishment  of  that  end,  it  comprehends  the  offer  of  that 
salvation  freely  and  honestly  to  all  men  on  the  condition  of 
their  faith.  No  man  is  lost  for  the  want  of  an  atonement,  or 
because  there  is  any  other  barrier  in  the  way  of  his  salvation 
than  his  own  most  free  and  wicked  will. 

23.  How  can  the  condemnation  of  men  for  the  rejection  of  Christ 
be  reconciled  with  the  doctrine  that  Christ  died  for  the  elect  only? 

A  salvation  all-sufficient  and  exactly  adapted  to  his  neces- 
sities is  honestly  offered  to  every  man  to  whom  the  gospel 
comes;  and  in  every  case  it  is  his,  if  he  believes;  and  in  no 
case  does  any  thing  prevent  his  believing  other  than  his  own 
evil  disposition.  Evidently  he  is  in  no  way  concerned  with 
the  design  of  God  in  providing  that  salvation  beyond  the  as- 
surance that  God  intends  to  give  it  to  him  if  he  believes.  If 
a  man  is  responsible  for  a  bad  heart,  and  the  exercises  thereof, 
he  must  be  above  all  worthy  of  condemnation  for  rejecting  such 
a  Saviour. 

24.  On  what  principles  are  those  texts  to  l>e  explained  which 
speak  of  Christ's  bearing  the  siyis  of  the  world,  and  of  his  dying 
J  or  all  ? 

These  are  such  passages  as  Heb.  ii.  9 ;  1  Cor.  xv.  22 ;  1  John 
ii.  2;  1  Tim.  ii.  6;  John  l.  29;  iii.  16,  17;  vi.  51.  These  terms, 
"world"  and  "all,"  are  unquestionably  used  in  very  various 
degrees  of  latitude  in  the  Scriptures.  In  many  passages  that 
latitude  is  evidently  limited  by  the  context,  e.  g.,  1  Cor.  xv.  22 ; 
Rom.  v.  18;  viii.  32;  John  xii.  32;  Eph.  i.  10;  Col.  i.  20;  2  Cor. 


VARIOUS    VIEWS   HELD    IN    THE  CHURCH.  421 

v.  14,  15.  In  others  the  word  "world"  is  opposed  to  the  Jewish 
nation  as  a  people  of  exclusive  privileges. — Kom.  xi.  12,  15; 
1  John  ii.  2.  It  is  evident  that  statements  as  to  the  design  of 
Christ's  death,  involving  such  general  terms,  must  be  defined 
by  the  more  definite  ones  above  exhibited.  Sometimes  this 
general  form  of  statement  is  used  to  give  prominence  to  the 
fact  that  Christ,  being  a  single  victim,  by  one  sacrifice  atoned 
for  so  many. — Compare  Matt.  xx.  28,  with  1  Tim.  ii.  6,  and 
Heb.  ix.  28.  And  although  Christ  did  not  die  with  the  design 
of  saving  all,  yet  he  did  suffer  the  penalty  of  that  law  under 
which  all  were  placed,  and  he  does  offer  the  righteousness  thus 
wrought  out  to  all. 

25.  How  are  we  to  understand  those  passages  ivhich  speak,  of 
(he  possibility  of  those  perishing  for  whom  Christ  died? 

Such  passages  are  hypothetical,  and  truly  indicate  the  na- 
ture and  tendency  of  the  action  against  which  they  warn  us, 
and  are  the  means  which  God  uses  under  the  administration 
of  his  Spirit  to  fulfil  his  purposes.  God  always  deals  with  men 
by  addressing  motives  to  their  understandings  and  wills,  thus 
fulfilling  his  own  design  through  their  agency.  In  the  case 
of  Paul's  shipwreck,  it  was  certain  that  none  should  perish, 
and  yet  all  would  perish  except  they  abode  in  the  ship. — Acts 
xxvii.  24-31.  On  the  same  principle  must  be  explained  all 
such  passages  as  Heb.  x.  26-30;  1  Cor.  viii.  11,  etc. 

History  of  the  Various  Views  held  in  the  Church. 

26.  State  the  general  character  of  tJw  Soteriology  of  the  Early 
Fatliers. 

1st.  From  the  very  first  the  representative  Christian  Fathers 
taught  in  a  crude,  unscientific  manner  that  Christ  suffered  as  a 
eubstitute  for  his  people,  to  expiate  sin  and  to  propitiate  God. 
They  freely  applied  to  Christ's  work  the  sacrificial  language 
of  the  Scriptures.  Outram,  Dis.  1,  ch.  17. — "As  it  regards  the 
work  of  Christ  as  the  Redeemer  of  mankind,  we  find  already 
in  the  language  used  by  the  Church  Fathers  on  this  point,  in 
the  period  under  consideration,  all  the  elements  that  lay  at  the 
basis  of  the  doctrine  as  it  afterwards  came  to  be  defined  by 
the  Church."— Neander's  "Ch.  Hist.,"  Vol.  I.,  p.  640,  see  testi- 
monies below.  2d.  Together  with  this  view  there  was  com- 
bined during  the  whole  earlier  age  until  the  time  of  Anselm 
a  view  especially  emphasized  by  Origen  (185-254)  and  Irenajus 
(|200\  to  the  effect  that  Christ  was  offered  by  God  as  a  ransom 
ior  his  people  to  Satan,  who  held  them  by  the  power  of  con 


122  THE    ATONEMENT:    ITS   NATURE,    ETC. 

quest.     This  view  was  founded  on  such  passages  as  Col.  ii.  15, 
and  Heb.  ii.  14. 

27.  State  generally  the  four  theories  under  one  or  other  of  which 
all  vieivs  ever  entertained  as  to  the  nature  of  the  reconciliation  effected 
by  Christ  may  be  grouped. 

1st.  The  Mystical,  which,  although  it  has  assumed  various 
forms,  may  be  generally  stated  thus :  The  reconciliation  effected 
by  Christ  was  brought  about  by  the  mysterious  union  of  God 
and  man  accomplished  by  the  incarnation,  rather  than  by  his 
sacrificial  death.  This  view  was  entertained  by  some  of  the 
Platonizing  Fathers,  by  the  disciples  of  Scotus  Erigena  during 
the  Middle  Ages,  by  Osiander  and  Schwenkfeld  at  the  Infor- 
mation, and  by  the  school  of  Schleiermacher  among  modern 
German  theologians. 

2d.  The  Moral  Influence  Theory  first  distinctively  elaborated 
by  Abelard  (t/1142)  and  held  by  the  Socinians,  and  such  Trin- 
itarians as  Maurice,  Young,  Jowett,  Bushnell,  etc.  The  points 
involved  are — (1.)  There  is  no  such  principle  as  vindicatory 
justice  in  God.  (2.)  Benevolence  is  the  single  ultimate  prin- 
ciple determining  God  in  his  provisions  for  human  redemption. 
(3.)  The  sole  object  of  the  life  and  death  of  Christ  is  to  produce 
a  moral  effect  upon  the  individual  sinner,  subduing  his  obdurate 
aversion  to  God  and  his  sullen  distrust  of  his  willingness  to  for- 
give. Thus  reconciling  man  to  God  instead  of  God  to  man. 
(4.)  The  Socinians  held  in  addition  that  Christ's  death  was  the 
necessary  precondition  of  his  resurrection,  by  which  he  brought 
immortality  to  light. 

3d.  The  Governmental  Theory,  which,  presupposing  all  the 
positive  truth  contained  in  the  "Moral  Influence  Theory," 
maintains — (1.)  That  justice  in  God  is  not  vindicatory,  but 
is  to  be  referred  to  a  general  Governmental  rectitude,  based 
upon  a  benevolent  regard  for  the  highest  ultimate  and  most 
general  well-being  of  the  subjects  of  his  moral  government. 
(2.)  Law  is  a  product  of  the  divine  will  and  therefore  relax- 
able.  (3.)  God's  sovereign  prerogative  includes  the  right  of 
pardon.  (4.)  But  the  governmental  rectitude  above  explained, 
in  view  of  the  fact  that  indiscriminate  pardon  would  encourage 
the  violation  of  law,  determines  God  to  condition  the  pardon  of 
human  sinners  upon  an  imposing  example  of  suffering  in  a  victim 
so  related  to  mankind  and  to  himself,  as  effectually  to  demon- 
strate his  determination  that  sin  should  not  be  indulged  with 
impunity.  Therefore — (a.}  Christ's  sufferings  were  not  punish- 
ment, but  an  example  of  a  determination  to  punish  hereafter. 
(&.)  They  were  designed  not  to  satisfy  divine  justice,  but  to 
impress  the  public  mind  of  the  moral  universe  with  a  sin- 


CLASSICAL   AND    CONFESSIONAL   AUTHORITIES.         423 

deterring  motive.  This  theory  was  first  elaborated  by  Hugo 
Grotius  ft 1645)  in  his  great  work,  " JDefensio  Fidel  Catholicce  dt 
Satisfactione  Christi"  in  which  he  abandoned  the  faith  he  as- 
sumed to  defend.  It  has  never  been  embodied  in  the  creed  of 
any  historical  church,  but  has  been  held  by  several  schools  of 
theologians,  e.  a.,  the  Supernaturalists  of  the  last  age  in  Ger 
many,  as  Staudlin,  Flatt,  and  Storr,  and  in  America  by  Jonathan 
Edwards,  Jr.,  Smalley,  Maxey,  Dwight,  Emmons,  and  Park. 

Remarks. — While  this  theory  embraces  much  precious  truth, 
it  fails  in  the  essential  point  on  which  the  integrity  of  the  whole 
depends.  For — (1.)  Only  a  real  bona  fide  punishment  can  be 
an  example  of  a  punishment,  or  a  proof  of  God's  determination 
to  punish  sin.  (2.)  It  ignores  the  essential  justice  of  God,  and 
(3)  the  fact  that  sin  is  an  essential  evil  in  itself,  and  (4)  the 
fact  that  Christ  suffered  as  the  Head  in  whom  all  his  members 
were  United. 

4th.  The  Satisfaction  Theory  consistently  embraces  the  posi- 
tive elements  of  the  "  Moral  Influence  "  and  "  Governmental " 
theories  above  stated.  It  was  first  analyzed  and  set  forth  in  a 
scientific  form  by  Anselm,  archbishop  of  Canterbury  (fl093- 
fll09),  in  his  epoch-making  book,  "Cur  Deus  Homo"  and  it 
has  formed  the  basis  of  the  Soteriological  doctrines  of  all  the 
creeds  and  classical  theological  literature  of  all  the  historical 
churches  since  his  time.  It  has  been  sufficiently  stated  and 
proved  in  the  former  part  of  this  chapter. 

Literature. — Hase,  "Libri  Symbolici  Eccle.  Evangelical  ";  Nie- 
meyer,  "Collectio  Confessionum,"  etc.;  Streitwolf,  "IAbri  Symbolici 
Eccle.  Catholicce."  "De  Sacrificiis,  Gulielmo  Outramo  Auctore"; 
Neander's  and  Shaff's  "Church  Histories";  Archb.  Magee,  "The 
Atonement";  Shedd's  " History  of  Christian  Doctrine";  Owens 
"Works"  vol.  10,  "Redemption" ;  Kitsch],  "Grit.  Hist,  of  the  Christ. 
Doctrine  of  Reconciliation  ';  Candlish,  "Tlue- Atonement";  Watson's 
"Institutes." 

Classical  and  Confessional  Authorities. 

Origen,  "Homil.  ad  Levit."  1,  speaking  of  Christ  says,  "He  laid  hia 
hand  upon  the  head  of  the  calf,  i.  e.,  he  laid  the  sins  of  mankind  upon 
his  own  head,  for  he  is  the  head  of  the  body,  the  Church." 

AlJianusius  (|373),  contra  Arianos,  1,  45-fCO. — "The  death  of  the 
incarnate  Logos  is  a  ransom  for  the  sins  of  men  and  a  death  of  death." 
.  .  .  "Laden  with  guilt  the  world  was  condemned  bylaw,  but  the 
Logos  assumed  the  condemnation,  and  suffering  in  the  flesh  gave  salva- 
tion to  all. " 

Gregory  the  Great  (t604),  "Moralia  in  Jobum,"  17,  46. — "Guilt  can  be 
extinguished  only  by  penal  offering  to  justice.  .  .  Hence  a  sinless  man 
must  be  offered.  .  .  .  Hence  the  Son  of  God  must  be  born  of  a 
virgin,  and  become  man  for  us.     He  assumed  our  nature  without  our 


424  THE    ATONEMENT:    ITS   NATURE,    ETC. 

corruption  [culpa).  He  made  himself  a  sacrifice  for  us,  and  set  forth  foi 
sinners  his  own  body,  a  victim  without  sin,  and  able  both  to  die  by  virtue 
of  its  humanity,  and  to  cleanse  the  guilty,  upon  grounds  of  justice. " 

Bernard  of  Glairvaux  (fll53),  "Tract,  contr.  Err.  Abcelardi,"  cap. 
6,  15. — "If  One  has  died  for  all,  then  all  are  dead  (2  Cor.  v.  14),  that  is, 
the  satisfaction  of  one  is  imputed  to  all,  as  that  One  bore  the  sins  of  all, 
neither  is  it  found  that  he  who  offended  is  one,  and  he  that  satisfied 
another,  for  the  head  and  the  body  is  one  Christ.  Therefore  the  Head 
made  satisfaction  for  his  members. " 

Wycliffe  (1324-1384),  "Be  Incarn.  et  Mori.  Christi. "— "  And  since 
according  to  the  third  supposition,  it  is  necessary  that  satisfaction 
Bhould  be  made  for  sin,  so  it  was  necessary  that  that  same  race  of  man 
should  make  the  satisfaction  as  great,  as  it  had,  in  the  first  parent,  made 
the  offence,  which  no  man  could  do,  unless  he  were  at  the  same  time 
God  and  man." 

The  Valenses  of  Piedmont,  in  1542,  presented  a  Confession  to  Fran- 
cis I.  of  France  through  Cardinal  Sadolet.  In  it  they  say,  "  This  Con- 
fession is  that  which  we  have  received  from  our  ancestors,  even  from 
hand  to  hand,  according  as  their  predecessors  in  all  times,  and  in  every 
age,  have  taught  and  delivered.  .  .  We  believe  and  confess  that  the 
gratuitous  remission  of  sins  proceeds  from  the  mercy  and  mere  goodness 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  died  once  for  our  sins,  the  just  for  the 
unjust;  who  bore  our  sins  in  his  own  body  on  the  cross;  who  is  our 
advocate  with  God,  himself  the  price  of  our  reconciliation ;  who  alone 
has  made  satisfaction  for  believers,  to  whom  sins  are  not  imputed  as  they 
are  to  the  unbelieving  and  the  reprobates. " 

John  Wessel  (1419-1489),  "Be  Caasis  Incarnationis." — "  Truly  himself 
God,  himself  priest,  himself  victim,  he  made  satisfaction  for  himself,  of 
himself,  to  himself. "  '  'Exempla  Scalce  Meditalionis, "  Ex.  1,  p.  544.  — "  Our 
loving  Father  willed  thee  his  own  loving  Son  to  be  a  surety,  sponsor, 
guaranty  with  respect  to  sufficient  doing  and  sufficient  suffering,  upon  just 
pledge,  for  my  universal  failure  and  miscarriage. " 

"Obthodox  Confession  of  the  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Eastern 
Church,  composed  by  Petrus  Mogilas,  Metropolitan  of  Eiew,  1642,  and 
sanctioned  by  the  Synod  of  Jerusalem  1672,  p.  85.  "  The  death  of  Christ 
was  of  a  very  different  kind  from  that  of  all  other  men  in  these  respects; 
first,  because  of  the  weight  of  our  sins;  secondly,  because  he  wholly  ful- 
filled the  priesthood  even  to  the  cross;  he  offered,  himself  to  God  and  the 
Father  for  the  ransoming  of  the  human  race.  Therefore  even  to  the 
cross  he  fulfilled  the  mediation  between  God  and  men." 

Roman  Doctrine. — "Council  of  Trent,"  Sess.  6,  chap.  7. — "Christ, 
who  when  we  were  enemies,  on  account  of  the  great  love  wherewith  he 
loved  us,  merited  justification  by  his  most  holy  passion  on  the  wood  of 
the  cross,  and  made  satisfaction  to  God  the  Father  for  us."  "Catechism 
of  Council  of  Trent,"  Pt.  II. ,  ch.  5,  Q.  60.—"  The  first  and  most  excellent 
satisfaction  is  that  by  which  whatever  is  due  by  us  to  God,  on  account 
of  our  sins,  has  been  paid  abundantly,  although  he  should  deal  with  us 
according  to  the  strictest  rigor  of  his  justice.  This  is  said  to  be  that 
satisfaction,  which  we  say  has  appeased  God  and  rendered  him  propitious 
to  us,  and  for  it  we  are  indebted  to  Christ  the  Lord  alone,  who  having 
paid  the  price  of  our  sins  on  the  cross,  most  fully  satisfied  God. " 

Lutheran  Confessions,  Hose's  "Collection,"  p.  684,  "Formula  Con- 
cordia;."— "That  righteousness  which  before  God  is  of  mere  grace  im- 
puted to  faith,  or  to  the  believer,  is  the  obedience,  suffering,  and  resur- 
rection of  Christ,  by  which  he  for  our  sakes  satisfied  the  law,  and  expi- 


CLASSICAL    AND    CONFESSIONAL    AUTHORITIES.        425 

ated  our  sing.  For  since  Christ  was  not  only  man,  but  God  and  man  in 
one  undivided  person,  so  he  was  not  subject  to  the  law,  nor  obnoxious 
to  suffering  and  death  on  his  own  account,  because  he  was  Lord  of  the 
law.  On  which  account  his  obedience  (not  merely  in  respect  that  he 
obeyed  the  Father  in  his  sufferings  and  death,  but  also  that  he  for  our 
sakes  willingly  made  himself  subject  to  the  law  and  fulfilled  it  by  his  obe- 
dience) is  imputed  to  us,  so  that  God  on  account  of  that  whole  obedience 
(which  Christ  by  his  acting  and  by  his  suffering,  in  his  life  and  in  his 
death,  for  our  sakes  rendered  to  his  Father  who  is  in  heaven)  remits  our 
sins,  reputes  us  as  good  and  just,  and  gives  us  eternal  salvation. " 

Reformed  Doctrine. — "  Thirty-nine  Articles,"  Arts.  11  and  31. — 
"  The  offering  of  Christ  once  made  is  that  perfect  redemption,  propi- 
tiation, and  satisfaction  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world  both  original 
and  actual;  and  there  is  none  other  satisfaction  for  sin  but  that  alone." 
Homily  3d.  "  On  Salvation." — "  God  sent  his  only  Son  our  Saviour  Christ 
into  this  world,  to  fulfil  the  law  for  us,  and  by  shedding  his  most  pre- 
cious blood,  to  make  a  sacrifice  and  satisfaction  to  his  Father  for  our 
sins."  "Heidelberg  Cat.,"  Ques.  12-18  and  40.  "West  Conf.  Faith," 
ch.  viii.,  I  5,  and  ch.  xi.,  g  3.  "Form.  Cons.  Helvetica,"  cans.  13-15. 
Cocceius  ("De  Feed,  et  Testam.  Dei,"  cap.  5,  92).  "Thus  that  greatest 
mystery  (the  eternal  covenant  between  the  Father  and  the  Son)  is  re- 
vealed in  what  manner  we  are  justified  and  saved  by  God,  in  what  man- 
ner God  may  both  be  the  one  who  judges,  and  who  acts  as  surety,  and 
who  thus  is  himself  judged,  who  absolves  and  who  intercedes,  who  sends 
and  is  sent.  That  is  in  what  manner  God  himself  satisfied  himself  by 
his  own  blood." 

Remonstrant  Doctrine. — Limborch,  "Apol.  Tlies."  3,  22,  5. — "It  may 
here  be  questioned  in  what  way  the  sacrifice  of  one  man  is  able  to  suffice 
and  in  fact  did  suffice  for  expiating  the  innumerable  sins  of  so  many 
myriads  of  men.  Answer.  It  sufficed  on  two  accounts.  First  with  re- 
spect to  the  divine  will,  which  required  nothing  more  for  the  liberation 
of  the  human  race,  but  was  satisfied  with  this  one  sacrifice  alone.  Sec- 
ondly with  respect  to  the  dignity  of  the  person,  Jesus  Christ .  .  .21,  6. 
The  satisfaction  of  Christ  is  so-called  inasmuch  as  it  releases  from  all 
the  penalties  due  our  sins,  and  by  hearing  and  exhausting  them,  satisfies 
divine  justice.  But  this  sentiment  has  no  foundation  in  Scripture.  The 
death  of  Christ  is  called  a  sacrifice  for  sin;  but  sacrifices  are  not  pay- 
ments of  debts,  nor  are  they  full  satisfactions  for  sins;  but  a  gratuitous 
remission  is  granted  when  they  are  offered." 

Remonstrantia,  etc.,  five  articles  prepared  by  the  Dutch  advocates  of 
universal  redemption  (1G10),  Art  2. — "Therefore  Jesus  Christ,  the  Sa- 
viour of  the  world,  died  for  all  and  every  man,  so  that  he  impetrated  for 
all  through  his  death  reconciliation  and  remission  of  sins,  nevertheless 
on  this  condition,  that  no  one  should  have  actual  fruition  of  that  recon- 
ciliation, unless  he  is  a  behever,  and  that  also  accordiug  to  the  gospel." 

Soctnian  Doctrine. — "  Rac.  Cat."  Sec.  5,  ch.  viii. — "What  was  the 
purpose  of  the  divine  will  that  Christ  should  suffer  for  our  sins  ?  Ans. 
First,  that  a  most  certain  right  to,  and  consequently  a  sure  hope  of,  the 
remission  of  their  sins,  and  of  eternal  life,  might  by  this  means  be  cre- 
tod  for  all  sinners  (Rom.  viii.  32  and  v.  8-10).  Secondly,  that  all  sinners 
might  be  incited  and  drawn  to  Christ,  seeking  salvation  in  and  by  him 
alone  who  died  for  them.  Thirdly,  that  God  might  in  this  manner  tes- 
tify his  boundless  love  to  the  human  race,  and  might  wholly  reconcile 
them  to  himself  (John  iii.  16)." 


CHAPTER    XXVI. 

THE  INTERCESSION  OF  CHRIST. 

1.  In  what  sense  is  Christ  to  continue  a  priest  forever  ? 

This  is  asserted  by  Paul,  Heb.  vii.  3,  24,  to  contrast  the 
priesthood  of  Christ  with  that  of  Aaron,  which  consisted  of  a 
succession  of  mortal  men  in  their  generations.  His  priesthood 
is  perpetual,  because,  1st,  by  one  sacrifice  for  sin  he  hath  for- 
ever perfected  them  that  are  sanctified;  2d,  he  ever  liveth  to 
make  intercession  for  us;  3d,  his  person  and  work  as  mediator 
will  continue  for  all  eternity  the  ground  of  our  acceptance,  and 
the  medium  of  our  communion  with  the  Father. 

2.  Did  lie  intercede  for  his  people  on  earth  ? 

He  did  exercise  this  function  of  his  priesthood  on  earth, 
Luke  xxiii.  34;  John  xvii.  20;  Heb.  v.  7;  the  principal  scene 
of  its  exercise,  however,  is  his  estate  of  exaltation  in  heaven. 

3.  What  is  the  view  which  the  Scriptures  present  of  the  inter- 
cession of  Christ? 

1st.  He  appears  in  the  presence  of  God  for  us,  as  the  priestly 
advocate  of  his  people,  and  presents  his  sacrifice. — Heb.  ix.  12, 
24;  Rev.  v.  6. 

2d.  He  acts  as  our  advocate  with  the  Father,  and  on  the 
basis  of  his  own  perfect  work  under  the  terms  of  the  covenant 
of  grace,  claims  as  his  own  right,  though  as  infinitely  free  grace 
to  usward,  the  fulfillment  of  all  the  promises  of  his  covenant, 
1  John  ii.  1;  John  xvii.  24;  xiv.  16;  Acts  ii.  33;  Heb.  vii.  25. 

3d.  Because  of  his  community  of  nature  with  his  people, 
and  his  personal  experience  of  the  same  sorrows  and  tempta- 
tions which  now  afflict  them,  he  sympathizes  with  them,  and 
watches  and  succors  them  in  all  their  varying  circumstances, 
and  adapts  his  ceaseless  intercessions  to  the  entire  current  of 
their  experiences. — Heb.  ii.  17,  18;  iv.  15.  16;  Matt,  xxviii.  20; 
xviii.  20. 


AN  ESSENTIAL    PART   OF  HIS   PRIESTLY    WORK.       427 

4th.  He  presents,  and  through  his  merits  gains  acceptance 
for  the  persons  and  services  of  his  people. — 1  Pet.  ii.  5;  Eph 
i.  6;  Rev.  viii.  3,  4;  Heb.  iv.  14-16. 

4.  For  whom  does  he  intercede  ? 

Not  for  the  world,  but  for  his  own  people  of  every  fold,  and 
of  all  times. — John  x.  16;  xvii.  9,  20. 

5.  Slwio  that  his  intercession  is  an  essential  part  of  his  priestly 
work. 

It  is  absolutely  essential,  Heb.  vii.  25,  because  it  is  necessary 
for  him  as  mediator  not  merely  to  open  up  a  way  of  possible 
salvation,  but  actually  to  accomplish  the  salvation  of  each  of 
those  given  to  him  by  the  Father,  and  to  furnish  each  with 
an  "introduction"  (npu^ayooyrf)  to  the  Father. — John  xvii.  12; 
Eph.  ii.  18;  iii.  12.  The  communion  of  his  people  with  the 
Father  will  ever  be  sustained  through  him  as  mediatorial 
priest. — Ps.  ex.  4;  Rev.  vii.  17. 

6.  What  relation  does  the  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost  sustain  to  the 
intercession  of  Christ  ? 

Christ  is  a  royal  priest. — Zech.  vi.  13.  From  the  same 
throne,  as  king,  he  dispenses  his  Spirit  to  all  the  objects  of 
his  care,  while  as  priest  he  intercedes  for  them.  The  Spirit 
acts  for  him,  taking  only  of  his  things.  They  both  act  with 
one  consent,  Christ  as  principal,  the  Spirit  as  his  agent.  Christ 
intercedes  for  us,  without  us,  as  our  advocate  in  heaven,  accord- 
ing to  the  provisions  of  the  eternal  covenant.  The  Holy  Ghost 
works  upon  our  minds  and  hearts,  enlightening  and  quicken- 
ing, and  thus  determining  our  desires  "according  to  the  will 
of  God,"  as  our  advocate  within  us.  The  work  of  the  one  is 
complementary  to  that  of  the  other,  and  together  they  form  a 
complete  whole. — Rom.  viii.  26,  27;  John  xiv.  26. 


CHAPTER    XXVII. 

MEDIATORIAL  KINGSHIP  OF  CHRIST. 

1.  Hoio  does  the  sovereignty  of  Christ  as  Mediator  differ  from 
his  sovereignty  as  God? 

His  sovereignty  as  God  is  essential  to  his  nature,  underived, 
absolute,  eternal,  and  unchangeable. 

His  sovereignty  as  mediatorial  King  is  derived,  given  to 
him  by  his  Father  as  the  reward  of  his  obedience  and  suffer- 
ing; it  is  special,  having  respect  to  the  salvation  of  his  own 
people  and  the  administration  of  the  provisions  of  the  covenant 
of  grace ;  and  it  attaches,  not  to  his  divine  nature  as  such,  but 
to  his  person  as  God-man,  occupying  the  office  of  Mediator. 

His  kingdom  is  a  very  prominent  subject  in  Scripture. — 
Dan.  ii.  44;  Matt.  xiii.  1-58,  and  xx.  20-29;  Luke  xiii.  23-30, 
and  xvii.  20  and  21;  Rom.  xiv.  17;  1  Pet.  iii.  22;  Eph.  i.  10,  21, 
and  22. 

2.  What  is  the  extent  of  Christ's  mediatorial  kingdom,  and  what 
are  the  different  aspects  which  it  presents  ? 

Christ's  mediatorial  authority  embraces  the  universe. — Matt, 
xxviii.  18;  Phil.  ii.  9-11;  Eph.  i.  17-23.  It  presents  two  great 
aspects.  1st.  In  its  general  administration  as  embracing  the 
universe  as  a  whole.  2d.  In  its  special  administration  as  em- 
bracing the  church. 

It  has  been  distinguished  as — (1.)  His  kingdom  of  power, 
which  embraces  the  entire  universe  in  his  providential  and 
judicial  administration.  The  end  of  this  is  the  subjection  of 
his  enemies  (Heb.  x.  12,  13;  1  Cor.  xv.  25),  the  vindication  of 
divine  righteousness  (John  v.  22-27 ;  ix.  39),  and  the  perfecting 
of  his  church.  (2.)  His  kingdom  of  grace  which  is  spiritual 
alike  as  to  its  subjects,  laws,  modes  of  administration,  and  in- 
strumentalities. (3.)  His  kingdom  of  glory  is  the  consumma- 
tion of  his  providential  and  gracious  administration,  and  will 
continue  forever. 


FUBLICLY  ASSUMED    WHEN  HE    ASCENDED.  429 

3.  What  are  tine  objects  of  his  mediatorial  authority  over  the 
universe,  and  how  is  it  administered  ? 

Its  object  is  to  accomplish  the  salvation  of  his  church  in 
the  execution  of  all  the  provisions  of  the  covenant  of  grace, 
which  devolves  upon  him  as  Mediator.  —  Eph.  i.  23.  As  the 
universe  constitutes  one  physical  and  moral  system,  it  was 
necessary  that  his  headship  as  Mediator  should  extend  to  the 
whole,  in  order  to  cause  all  things  to  work  together  for  good 
to  his  people,  Rom.  viii.  28 ;  to  establish  a  kingdom  for  them, 
Lu*ke  xxii.  29 ;  John  xiv.  2 ;  to  reduce  to  subjection  all  his  ene- 
mies, 1  Cor.  xv.  25;  Heb.  x.  13;  and  in  order  that  all  should 
worship  him. — Heb.  i.  6;  Kev.  v.  9-13.  His  general  mediatorial 
government  of  the  universe  is  administered,  1st,  providentially ; 
2d,  judicially.— John  v.  22,  27;  ix.  39;  2  Cor.  v.  10. 

Eph.  i.  10,  and  Col.  i.  20,  seem  to  indicate  that  Christ's 
mediatorial  headship  sustains  very  comprehensive  relations  to 
the  moral  universe  in  general,  which  otherwise  are  entirely 
unrevealed. 

4  WJien  did  Christ  formally  assume  his  mediatorial  kingdom  ? 

1st.  The  advocates  of  the  premillennial  advent,  and  personal 
reign  of  Christ  on  earth,  admit  that  Christ  now  reigns  at  his 
Father's  right  hand,  on  his  Father's  throne,  and  in  his  Father's 
right,  but  maintain  that  he  will  not  enter  properly  upon  his 
own  kingdom  and  sit  upon  his  own  throne  as  Mediator,  until 
his  second  advent,  when  he  will  assume  the  literal  throne  of 
David,  and  constitute  the  kingdom  from  Jerusalem  its  capital. 

2d.  The  truth  as  held  by  all  branches  of  the  historical 
church  is,  that  while  Christ  has  been  virtually  mediatorial 
King  as  well  as  Prophet  and  Priest  from  the  fall  of  Adam, 
yet  his  public  and  formal  assumption  of  his  throne  and  in- 
auguration of  his  spiritual  kingdom  dates  from  his  ascension 
and  session  at  the  right  hand  of  his  Father.  This  is  proved 
because  the  Old  Testament  predictions  of  his  kingdom  (Ps.  ii.  6 ; 
Jer.  xxiii.  5;  Is.  ix.  6;  Dan.  ii.  44)  are  in  the  New  Testament 
applied  to  the  first  advent.  John  the  Baptist  declared  that 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  was  at  hand.  Christ  declared  "the 
kingdom  of  God  is  come  unto  you,"  and  likens  it  to  the  field 
with  wheat  and  tares  growing  together,  etc. — Matt.  iv.  23; 
Acts  ii.  29-36. 

5.  What  are  the  different  titles  applied  in  Scripture  to  this  king- 
dom, and  what  are  the  senses  in  which  these  lilies  of  the  kingdom  are 
used? 

It  is  called — (1.)  The  "kingdom  of  God,"  Luke  iv.  43,  be> 


430  MEDIATORIAL    KINGSHIP    OF   CHRIST. 

cause  it  is  pre-eminently  of  divine  origin,  and  the  authority  of 
God  is  with  peculiar  directness  and  fulness  exercised  in  its 
administration.  (2.)  "The  kingdom  of  Christ"  and  of  "God's 
dear  Son,"  Matt.  xvi.  28 ;  Col.  i.  13,  because  he  is  in  person  the 
immediate  sovereign.  (3.)  "The  kingdom  of  heaven,"  Matt 
xi.  12,  because  its  origin  and  characteristics  are  from  heaven, 
and  its  consummation  is  to  be  in  heaven. 

These  phrases  are  sometimes  used  to  express — (1.)  Christ's 
mediatorial  authority,  or  its  administration,  and  the  power  and 
and  glory  which  belong  to  it,  as  when  we  ascribe  to  him  the 
"  kingdom  and  the  power  and  the  glory,"  or  affirm  that  of 
"his  kingdom  there  shall  be  no  end."  (2.)  The  blessings  and 
advantages  of  all  kinds,  inward  and  outward,  which  are  char- 
acteristic of  this  administration,  as  when  we  say  the  "king- 
dom is  righteousness  and  peace  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost." 
Thus  Napoleon  III.  said,  "The  Empire  is  peace."  (3.)  The 
subjects  of  the  kingdom  collectively,  as  when  we  are  said  to 
"  enter  the  kingdom,"  and  speak  of  "  the  keys  of  the  kingdom," 
which  admit  to  or  exclude  from  this  community.  In  this  latter 
sense  the  phrase  "  kingdom  of  God,"  or  "  of  heaven,"  is  synon- 
ymous with  the  word  "Church." 

The  word  fiadiXsia,  in  this  connection,  occurs  one  hundred 
and  thirty-seven  times  in  the  entire  New  Testament,  and  one 
hundred  and  ten  times  in  the  gospels,  fifty-three  times  in  Mat- 
thew alone,  the  gospel  most  nearly  related  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  only  twenty  times  in  the  epistles,  while  kunkj]6iay 
when  referring  to  the  Church  of  Christ,  occurs  but  once  in  the 
gospels  and  eighty-eight  in  the  epistles  and  revelations. 

6.  WJiat  is  the  nature  of  Christ's  Jcingly  administration  of  the 
affairs  of  his  own  people,  i.  e.,  of  his  kingdom  as  distinct  from  the 
universe ? 

1st.  It  is  providential.  He  administers  his  providential  gov- 
ernment over  the  universe  with  the  design  of  accomplishing 
thereby  the  support,  defence,  enrichment,  and  glorification  of 
his  people.  2d.  It  is  accomplished  by  the  dispensation  of  his 
Spirit  effectually  calling,  sanctifying,  comforting,  preserving, 
raising,  and  glorifying  his  people. — John  xv.  26;  Acts  ii.  33-36. 
3d.  It  is  accomplished  by  his  prescribing  the  form,  and  order, 
and  functions  of  his  church,  the  officers  who  are  to  act  as  the 
organs  of  those  functions,  and  the  laws  which  they  are  to  ad- 
minister.—Matt,  xxviii.  18,  19,  20;  Eph.  iv.  8,  11.  4th.  By  des- 
ignating the  persons  who  are  successively  to  assume  those 
offices,  oy  means  of  a  spiritual  call,  expressed  in  the  witness 
of  the  Spirit,  the  leadings  of  providence,  and  the  call  of  the 


HIS   KINGDOM  IS    SPIRITUAL.  431 

brethren.— Acts  i.  23,  24;  vi.  5;  xiii.  2,  3;  xx.  28;  1  Tim.  i.  12; 
iv.  14. 

Under  this  administration  this  kingdom  presents  two  as- 
pects, 1st,  as  militant,  Eph.  vi.  11-16;  2d,  as  glorified. — Rev. 
lii.  21.  And  accordingly  Christ  presents  himself  as  fulfilling, 
in  his  administration  of  the  affairs  of  his  kingdom,  the  functions 
of  a  great  Captain,  Rev.  xix.  11,  16,  and  of  a  sovereign  Prince 
reigning  from  a  throne. — Rev.  xxi.  5,  22,  23. 

The  throne  upon  which  he  sits  and  from  which  he  reigns  is 
presented  in  three  different  aspects,  corresponding  to  the  dif- 
ferent relations  he  sustains  to  his  people  and  the  world;  as  a 
throne  of  grace,  Heb.  iv.  16 ;  a  throne  of  judgment,  Rev.  xx. 
11-15;  and  a  throne  of  glory.  —  Compare  Rev.  iv.  2-5  with 
Rev.  v.  6. 

7.  In  what  sense  is  Christ's  kingdom  spiritual  ? 

1st.  The  King  is  a  spiritual  and  not  an  earthly  sovereign. 
Matt.  xx.  28;  John  xviii.  36.  2d.  His  throne  is  at  the  right 
hand  of  God. — Acts  ii.  33.  3d.  His  sceptre  is  spiritual. — Is.  liii. 
1;  Ps.  ex.  2.  4th.  The  citizens  of  his  kingdom  are  spiritual 
men. — Phil.  iii.  20 ;  Eph.  ii.  19.  5th.  The  mode  in  which  he  ad- 
ministers his  government  is  spiritual. — Zech.  iv.  6,  7.  6th.  His 
laws  are  spiritual. — John  iv.  24.  7th.  The  blessings  and  the 
penalties  of  his  kingdom  are  spiritual. — 1  Cor.  v.  4-11 ;  2  Cor. 
x.  4;  Eph.  i.  3-8;  2  Tim.  iv.  2;  Tit.  ii.  15. 

8.  What  is  the  extent  of  the  powers  which  Christ  has  vested  in 
his  visible  church  ? 

In  respect  to  the  civil  magistrate  the  church  is  absolutely 
independent.  In  subjection  to  the  supreme  authority  of  Christ 
her  head  the  powers  of  the  church  are  solely,  1st,  declarative, 
i.  e.,  to  expound  the  Scriptures,  which  are  the  perfect  rule  of 
faith  and  practice,  and  thus  to  witness  to  and  promulgate  the 
truth  in  creeds  and  confessions,  by  the  pulpit  and  the  press. 
And,  2d,  ministerial,  i.  e.,  to  organize  herself  according  to  the 
pattern  furnished  in  the  Word,  and  then  to  administer,  through 
the  proper  officers,  the  sacraments,  and  those  laws  and  that 
discipline  prescribed  by  the  Master,  and  to  make  provision  for 
the  proclamation  of  the  gospel  of  the  kingdom  to  every  crea- 
ture.—Is.  viii.  20;  Deut.  iv.  2;  Matt,  xxviii.  18-20;  Heb.  xiii.  17; 
1  Pet.  ii.  4. 

9.  What  are  the  conditions  of  admission  into  Christ's  kingdom  ? 

Simply  practical  recognition  of  the  authority  of  the  sover- 
eign. As  the  sovereign  and  the  entii'e  method  of  his  admin- 
istration are  spiritual,  it  is  plain  that  his  authority  must  be 


432  MEDIATORIAL    KINGSHIP   OF   CHRIST. 

understood  and  embraced  practically,  according  to  its  spiritual 
nature.  This  is  that  spiritual  faith  which  involves  spiritual 
illumination. — John  iii.  3,  5;  i.  12;  1  Cor.  xii.  3. 

10.  What  is  the  Romish  doctrine  of  tlve  relation  of  the  shurch  to 
the  state  ? 

According  to  the  strictly  logical  Romish  doctrine,  the  state 
is  only  one  phase  of  the  church.  The  whole  nation  being  in 
all  its  members  a  portion  of  the  church  universal,  the  civil  or- 
ganization is  comprehended  within  the  church  for  special  sub- 
ordinate ends,  and  is  responsible  to  the  church  for  the  exercise 
of  all  the  authority  delegated  to  it. 

First  Dogmatic  Constitution  on  tJie  Church,  Council  of  the  Vat- 
ican, 1870,  Ch.  iv.,  declares  that  the  judgments  of  the  Pope, 
pronounced  ex  cathedra,  as  pastor  and  doctor  of  all  Christians, 
upon  any  question  of  faith  or  morals  is  infallible  and  irreforma- 
ble.  This  infallibility  is  personal,  independent,  separate,  and 
absolute.  This  comprehends  all  matter  of  fact  and  doctrine 
revealed,  and  all  such  further  matters  of  fact  or  truth  unre- 
vealed  yet  involved  in  the  defence  of  that  which  is  revealed. 
In  the  third  chapter  the  supreme  authority  of  the  infallible 
Pope  is  extended  "  to  the  supreme  and  full  power  of  jurisdic- 
tion over  the  universal  church,  not  only  in  things  which  belong 
to  faith  and  morals,  but  also  in  those  which  relate  to  the  disci- 
pline and  government  thereof." 

In  the  "Papal  Syllabus  of  Errors,"  1864,  sent  to  all  the 
bishops  by  the  authority  of  the  Pope,  the  right  of  religious 
liberty  is  condemned,  the  right  to  enforce  the  decrees  of  the 
church  by  force  is  asserted,  and  the  marriage  of  those  who  re- 
fuse to  accept  the  Romish  Sacrament  of  matrimony  declared 
void  (see  the  affirmative  propositions  published  by  Von  P. 
Clemens  Schrader,  with  the  approbation  of  the  Pope). 

Pope  Pius  himself,  in  his  reply  to  the  Address  from  the 
Academia  of  the  Catholic  Religion  (July  21,  1873),  declares 
that  the  Pope  possesses  the  right,  which  he  properly  uses,  un- 
der favorable  circumstances,  "  to  pass  judgment  even  in  civil 
affairs,  on  the  acts  of  princes  and  of  nations." 

Archbishop  Manning,  in  "  Csesarism  and  Ultramontanism," 
p.  35,  says,  "  If,  then,  the  civil  power  be  not  competent  to  de- 
cide the  limits  of  the  spiritual  power,  and  if  the  spiritual  power 
can  define,  with  a  divine  certainty,  its  own  limits,  it  is  evi- 
dently supreme.  Or  in  other  words,  the  spiritual  power  knows 
with  divine  certainty  the  limits  of  its  own  jurisdiction ;  and  it 
knows  therefore  the  limits  and  competence  of  the  civil  power." 
"Any  power  which  is  independent,  and  can  alone  fix  the  limits 


RELATION   OF   CHURCH  AND    STATE.  433 

of  its  own  jurisdiction,  and  can  thereby  fix  the  limits  of  all 
other  jurisdiction,  is  ipso  facto  supreme." — See  Hon.  Win.  E. 
Gladstone,  "The  Vatican  Decrees  in  their  bearing  on  Civil 
Allegiance,"  and  his  "Answer  to  Keproofs  and  Replies." 

11.  What  is  the  Erastian  doctrine  as  to  the  relation  of  the  church 
to  the  state  ? 

This  doctrine,  named  from  Erastus,  a  physician  resident  in 
Heidelberg  in  the  sixteenth  century,  is  precisely  contrary  to 
that  of  the  Romanists,  i.  e.,  it  regards  the  church  as  only  one 
phase  of  the  state.  The  state,  being  a  divine  institution,  de- 
signed to  provide  for  all  the  wants  of  men,  spiritual  as  well  as 
temporal,  is  consequently  charged  with  the  duty  of  providing 
for  the  dissemination  of  pure  doctrine,  and  for  the  proper  ad- 
ministration of  the  sacraments,  and  of  discipline.  It  is  the  duty 
of  the  state,  therefore,  to  support  the  church,  to  appoint  its 
officers,  to  define  its  laws,  and  to  superintend  its  administration. 

12.  What  is  the  common  doctrine  of  the  Reformed  Church  on 
this  point  ? 

That  the  church  and  the  state  are  both  divine  institutions, 
having  different  objects,  and  in  every  respect  independent  of 
each  other.  The  members  and  officers  of  the  Church  are,  as 
men,  members  of  the  state,  and  ought  to  be  good  citizens ;  and 
the  members  and  officers  of  the  state,  if  Christians,  are  mem- 
bers of  the  church,  and  as  such  subject  to  her  laws.  But  nei- 
ther the  officers  nor  the  laws  of  either  have  any  authority 
within  the  sphere  of  the  other. 

13.  What  is  the  idea  and  design  of  the  State  f 

Civil  government  is  a  divine  institution,  designed  to  protect 
men  in  the  enjoyment  of  their  civil  rights.  It  has,  therefore, 
derived  from  God  authority  to  define  those  rights  touching  all 
questions  of  person  and  property,  and  to  provide  for  their  vin- 
dication, to  regulate  intercourse,  and  to  provide  all  means  nec- 
essary for  its  own  preservation. 

14.  What  is  the  design  of  the  visible  Church  ? 

It  is  a  divine  institution  designed  to  secure  instrumental ly 
the  salvation  of  men.     To  that  end  it  is  specially  designed — 

1st.  To  bring  men  to  a  knowledge  of  the  truth. 

2d.  To  secure  their  obedience  to  the  truth,  and  to  exercise 
their  graces  by  the  public  confession  of  Christ,  the  fellowship 
of  the  brethren,  and  the  administration  of  the  ordinances  and 
discipline. 

28 


434  MEDIATORIAL    KINGSHIP    OF   CHRIST. 

3d.  To  constitute  the  visible  witness  and  prophetic  type  of 
the  church  invisible  and  spiritual. 

15.  What  are  the  duties  of  the  officers  of  the  State  with  regard 
to  the  Church  ? 

The  state  is  a  divine  institution,  and  the  officers  thereof  are 
God's  ministers,  Rom.  xiii.  1-4,  Christ  the  Mediator  is,  as  a 
revealed  fact,  "  Ruler  among  the  Nations,"  King  of  kings,  and 
Lord  of  lords,  Rev.  xix.  16;  Matt,  xxviii.  18;  Phil.  ii.  9—11; 
Eph.  i.  17-23,  and  the  Sacred  Scriptures  are  an  infallible  rule 
of  faith  and  practice  to  all  men  under  all  conditions. 

It  follows  therefore — 1st.  That  every  nation  should  expli 
citly  acknowledge  the  Christ  of  God  to  be  the  Supreme  Gov- 
ernor, and  his  revealed  will  the  supreme  fundamental  law  of 
the  land,  to  the  general  principles  of  which  all  special  legisla- 
tion should  be  conformed.  2d.  That  all  civil  officers  should 
make  the  glory  of  God  their  end,  and  his  revealed  will  their 
guide.  3d.  That,  while  no  distinction  should  be  made  between 
the  various  Christian  denominations,  and  perfect  liberty  of 
conscience  and  worship  be  allowed  to  all  men,  nevertheless  the 
Christian  magistrate  should  seek  to  promote  piety  as  well  as 
civil  order  ("Conf.  Faith,"  ch.  23,  §  2).  This  they  are  to  do, 
not  by  assuming  ecclesiastical  functions,  nor  by  attempting  to 

Eatronize  or  control  the  church,  but  by  their  personal  example, 
y  giving  impartial  protection  to  church  property  and  facility 
to  church  work,  by  the  enactment  and  enforcement  of  laws 
conceived  in  the  true  spirit  of  the  Gospel,  and  especially  in 
maintaining  inviolate  the  Christian  Sabbath,  and  Christian 
marriage,  and  in  providing  for  Christian  instruction  in  the 
public  schools. 

16.  What  relation  does  the  civil  laiv  in  tlie  United  States  sus- 
tain to  Church  polity,  discipline,  and  property  ? 

I.  History. — 1st.  In  England  the  established  Church  is  a 
corporation  created  and  controlled  by  the  State. 

2d.  In  most  of  the  American  Colonies,  the  State,  at  first, 
undertook  the  absolute  control  of  ecclesiastical  affairs,  and 
limited  rights  of  citizenship  by  religious  tests. 

II.  Present  Facts. — 1st.  The  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  provides  that  "  No  religious  test  shall  ever  be  required 
as  a  qualification  to  any  office  or  public  trust  under  the  United 
States,  and  that  Congress  shall  make  no  law  respecting  an 
establishment  of  religion  or  prohibiting  the  free  exercise  there- 
of." The  constitutions  of  the  several  states  provide  to  the  same 
effect 


RELATION  OF  CHURCH  AND  STATE  IN  THE   U.   S.       435 

2d.  Christianity  in  a  general  sense  is,  as  an  historical  fact, 
an  essential  element  of  the  common  law  of  England,  and 
therefore  that  of  the  United  States  (except  Louisiana,  Texas, 
New  Mexico,  California,  etc.),  incorporated  in  our  customs, 
principles,  precedents,  etc.* 

3d.  It  is  recognized  by  the  civil  law  as  the  historical  and 
actual  religion  of  the  vast  majority  of  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States.  The  Christian  faith  and  the  institutions  in  which  it 
finds  expression,  are,  therefore,  to  be  reverenced  and  protected 
by  the  civil  law. 

4th.  The  civil  law,  therefore,  recognizes  the  church,  as 
having  an  historic  character,  and  as  being  an  important  element 
of  society.  It  recognizes  and  protects  its  right  to  exist  and 
enjoy  the  possession  of  its  legitimate  privileges  and  powers. 
Thus  the  civil  law  recognizes  and  protects  (1)  the  autonomy 
of  the  church  as  to  (a)  its  general  polity  and  (b)  its  discipline 
of  persons.  (2.)  The  rights  of  each  church  as  an  organized 
whole  to  its  property. 

5th.  The  civil  courts  recognize  as  final  the  decisions  of 
church  courts  as  to  (1)  who  are  members  of  the  church,  and 
(2)  who  are  the  spiritual  officers  of  the  church.  The  civil  court 
will  not  presume  to  go  back  of  the  decision  of  the  church  court 
in  order  to  determine  (1)  whether  it  was  rightly  constituted 
(i.  e.,  if  the  church  court  in  question  be  recognized  by  the  high- 
est authority  in  the  church),  or  (2)  whether  subsequently  to  its 
constitution  the  church  court  has  acted  consistently  with  its 
own  rules. 

Judge  Rogers,  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Penna.,  in  the  case 
of  the  German  Reformed  Church  of  Lebanon  Co.,  Pa.,  said, 
"  The  decisions  of  ecclesiastical  courts,  like  every  other  judicial 
tribunal,  are  final,  as  they  are  the  best  judges  of  what  consti- 
tutes an  offence  against  the  word  of  God  and  the  constitution 
of  the  church." 

The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  in  the  case  of  the 
Walnut  Street  Church,  Louisville,  Ky.,  1872,  decided — 

(1.)  Where  the  subject  matter  of  dispute  is  strictly  and 
purely  ecclesiastical  in  its  character,  a  matter  which  concerns 
theological  controversy,  church  discipline,  ecclesiastical  govern- 
ment, or  the  conformity  of  the  members  of  the  church  to  the 
standard  of  morals  required  of  them,  and  the  ecclesiastical 
courts  claim  jurisdiction,  the  civil  courts  will  not  assume  juris- 
diction— they  will  not  even  inquire  into  the  right  of  the  juris- 
diction of  the  ecclesiastical  court. 

(2.)  A  spiritual  court  is  the  exclusive  judge  of  its  own  ju« 

•  Case  of  Updegraff  v.  The  Commonwealth  of  Penna.,  11  S.  and  E.  400t 
before  Supreme  Court,  Justices  Duncan,  Tilghman,  aud  Gibson,  182 i. 


4o6  MEDIATORIAL    KINGSHIP    OF   CHRIST. 

risdiction:  its  decision  of  that  question  is  binding  on  the  secular 
courts  (see  "Presbyterian  Digest,"  Dr.  Wra.  E.  Moore,  p.  251). 

6th.  The  civil  law  recognizes  the  right  of  the  church  to 
discipline  its  members.  Even  the  public  declaration  made  pur- 
suant of  the  rules  of  order  of  a  church  from  "which  a  member 
has  been  excommunicated,  because  of  his  commission  of  an 
offence  regarded  as  infamous  by  the  law,  is  justified,  and  no 
action  of  slander  can  be  maintained  for  such  a  publication. 

7th.  The  church  proper,  or  "  ecclesiastical  society,"  is  distin- 
guished from  the  incorporated  "religious  society"  created  to 
hold  property  for  the  use  of  the  former.  These  incorporated 
religious  societies  are  governed  by  their  charters,  and  by  the 
by-laws  made  in  pursuance  thereof;  they  hold  property  by 
means  of  trustees,  and  are  virtually  civil  societies  as  much 
as  any  bank  or  railroad  company.  It  is  governed  by  the  law 
precisely  as  other  corporations  are.  It  is  subject  to  visitation. 
Intrusion  into  its  offices  may  be  remedied,  and  it  will  be  re- 
strained from  a  maladministration,  or  a  misappropriation  of 
the  property.  Its  articles  of  association,  and  by-laws  under 
its  charter,  providing  for  meetings,  elections,  and  conduct  of 
temporal  affairs,  may  be  changed  according  to  the  terms  pro- 
vided by  the  charter,  but  are  binding  while  they  exist.  Sub- 
stantial conformity  to  them  is  essential  to  the  valid  transaction 
of  business,  and  may  be  reviewed  by  the  civil  court. 

8th.  When  the  "Will"  or  "Deed  of  Gift"  or  "Terms  of  Sub- 
scription "  of  the  original  donors  of  the  property,  or  the  charter 
of  the  church,  prescribes  neither  (1)  any  specific  doctrine,  nor 
(2")  any  particular  form  of  church  government,  nor  connection 
with  any  definite  religious  denomination,  then  the  majority  of 
the  members  of  the  church  in  question  control  the  property, 
and  in  case  of  change  of  doctrines,  or  discipline,  or  of  denomi- 
national relation,  may  carry  the  property  with  them. 

But  whenever  either  the  doctrine  or  the  form  of  government 
or  ecclesiastical  connection  is  defined,  either  by  the  original 
donors  or  by  the  charter  of  the  church,  the  civil  courts  will 
protect  and  enforce  the  trust.  In  such  case,  if  any  change  is 
made  by  the  majority  in  either  of  these  essential  points,  the 
majority,  however  large,  forfeits  the  property,  and  the  minority, 
however  small,  will  be  maintained  in  possession.  And  the  civil 
court  will  in  all  such  cases  receive  and  act  on  the  decisions  of 
the  superior  ecclesiastical  courts  as  final  (see  Lectures  by  Hon. 
Wm.  Strong,  LL.D.,  Justice  of  Supreme  Court  of  U.  S.,  1875). 

17.  What  is  the  relative  jurisdictions  of  the  "Boards  of  Trustees" 
and  of  the  "Sessions"  of  our  Presbyterian  Churches,  over  tlie  houses 
of  worship  pertaining  to  their  respective  Congregations  ? 


HIS  KINGDOM  EVERLASTING.  437 

The  "Session"  is  the  only  body  of  congregational  officers 
known  to  our  ecclesiastical  constitution.  The  "  Board  of  Trus- 
tees" is  a  creature  of  the  civil  courts  for  the  purpose  of  holding 
the  congregational  property  in  trust. 

As  to  their  respective  jurisdictions  the  decisions  of  the  courts 
and  of  the  general  assembly  are  in  harmony  with  each  other. 
The  legal  title  to  the  property  is  vested  in  the  trustees,  and  they 
have  the  custody  of  it  "for  the  uses  and  purposes  for  which 
they  hold  it  in  trust,"  namely,  the  worship  of  God,  etc.,  accord- 
ing to  the  order  of  the  church  to  which  it  appertains,  including 
business  meetings  relating  to  the  congregation.  The  session 
is  charged  with  the  supervision  of  the  spiritual  interests  of  the 
congregation,  including  the  right  to  direct  and  control  the  use 
of  the  building  for  such  purposes.  In  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States,  in  the  Louisville  Walnut  Street  case,  the 
following  principles  were  enunciated:  "1.  By  the  act  of  the  leg- 
islature creating  the  trustees  of  a  church,  a  body  corporate, 
and  by  the  acknowledged  rules  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
the  trustees  are  the  mere  nominal  title-holders  and  custodians 
of  the  church  property.  2.  That  in  the  use  of  the  property  for 
all  religious  services,  or  ecclesiastical  purposes,  the  trustees  are 
under  the  control  of  the  church  session."  In  a  difference  be- 
tween trustees  and  the  session  of  a  church  in  Philadelphia 
respecting  an  organist,  the  question  was  carried  to  the  Supreme 
Court  of  that  state,  who  decided  that  the  worship  of  the  con- 
gregation was  under  the  charge  of  the  session,  and  that  the 
service  of  song  was  a  part  of  the  worship,  and  hence  the 
appointment  of  the  organist  was  in  the  session.  The  civil 
courts  are  very  firm  in  maintaining  the  rights  and  privileges 
of  religious  worship,  and  of  churches,  and  in  requiring  the  ob- 
servance of  the  trust. 

18.  What  are  the  duties  of  the  Church  icith  regard  to  the  State? 

1st.  The  church  owes  obedience  to  the  state  in  the  exercise 
of  her  lawful  authority  over  the  public  property  of  the  church. 
2d.  She  is  bound  to  use  all  the  lawful  means  in  her  possession 
for  carrying  the  gospel  to  all  the  members  of  the  state.  Beyond 
this  the  church  owes  no  duty  to  the  state  whatever. 

19.  In  lohat  sense  is  Christ  to  return  his  kingdom  to  his  Father, 
and  in  what  sense  will  his  mediatorial  headship  continue  forever? 

The  sum  of  what  is  revealed  to  us  upon  this  subject  appears 
to  be,  that  after  the  complete  glorification  of  his  people,  and 
the  destruction  of  his  enemies,  Christ  will  demit  his  mediatorial 
authority  over  the  universe,  which  he  has  administered  as  God- 


438  MEDIATORIAL    KINGSHIP   OF  CHRIST. 

man,  in  order  that  the  Godhead  absolute  may  be  immediately 
all  in  all  to  the  creature. — 1  Cor.  xv.  24-28.  But  his  mediato 
rial  headship  over  his  own  people,  including  the  offices  of 
prophet,  priest,  and  king,  shall  continue  forever.  This  is  cer 
tain — 1st.  Because  he  is  a  priest  forever,  and  of  his  kingdon 
there  is  no  end. — Ps.  ex.  4;  Dan.  vii.  14;  Luke  i.  33.  2d.  The 
personal  union  between  his  divine  and  human  nature  is  to  con 
tinue  forever.  3d.  As  Mediator  he  is  the  head  of  the  church 
which  is  his  fulness,  and  the  consummation  of  the  marriage 
of  the  Lamb  is  the  beginning  of  heaven. — Rev.  xix.  7;  xxi.  2,  9 
4th.  As  "a  Lamb  that  had  been  slain,"  he  is  represented  ii 
heaven  on  the  throne  as  ever  more  the  temple  and  the  ligh* 
of  the  city,  and  as  feeding  his  people,  and  leading  them  tc 
fountains  of  living  waters. — Rev.  v.  6;  vii.  17;  xxi.  22,  23. 


Christ  executed  his  Office  of  Mediator  both  ra  his  Estate  of 
Humiliation  and  Exaltation. 

20.  Wherein  does  Christ's  humiliation  consist  ? 

See  "Larger  Catechism,"  Questions  46-50;  "Shorter  Cate- 
chism," Question  27. 

21.  In  what  sense  was  CJirist  made  under  the  laiv,  and  luow  was 
that  subjection  an  act  of  humiliation  ? 

In  his  incarnation  Christ  was  born  precisely  into  the  law 
place  of -his  people,  and  sustained  to  the  law  precisely  that  rela- 
tion which  they  did.  He  was  born  under  the  law,  then,  1st,  as 
a  rule  of  duty;  2d,  as  a  covenant  of  life;  3d,  as  a  broken  cove- 
nant, whose  curse  was  already  incurred.  His  voluntary  assump- 
tion of  such  a  position  was  pre-eminently  an  act  of  humiliation : 
1st.  His  assumption  of  a  human  nature  was  voluntary.  2d.  After 
his  incarnation  his  person  remained  divine,  and  the  claims  of 
law  terminating  upon  persons,  and  not  upon  natures,  his  sub- 
mission to  those  claims  was  purely  gratuitous.  3d.  This  con- 
descension is  immeasurably  heightened  by  the  fact  that  he 
accepted  the  curse  of  the  law  as  of  a  covenant  of  life  already 
broken — Gal.  iii.  10-13;  iv.  4,  5. 

22.  In  ivhat  sense  did  Christ  undergo  the  curse  of  the  laiv,  and 
how  was  that  possible  for  God's  well-beloved  Son  ? 

In  his  own  person,  absolutely  considered,  Christ  is  often 
declared  by  the  Father  to  be  his  "beloved  Son,  with  whom  he 
was  well  pleased,"  Matt.  iii.  17;  2  Pet.  i.  17;  and  he  always 
did  that  which  pleased  God. — .John  viii.  29.     But  in  his  office 


THE    HUMILIATION    OF   CHRIST.  433 

as  mediator  he  had  assumed  our  place,  and  undertaken  to  bear 
the  guilt  of  our  sin.  The  wrath  of  God,  then,  which  Christ 
bore,  was  the  infinite  displeasure  of  God  against  our  sins, 
which  displeasure  terminated  upon  Christ's  person  vicariously, 
because  of  the  iniquity  of  us  all  which  was  laid  upon  him. — 
Matt.  xxvi.  38 ;  xxvii.  46 ;  Luke  xxii.  44. 

23.  What  are  the  different  interpretations  of  the  phrase  in  the 
apostles'  creed,  "  he  descended  into  Jiell"  or  Hades  ? 

The  phrase,  xarafiadis  ete  adov,  desensus  ad  inferos,  was  ono 
of  the  last  incorporated  into  the  ancient  Creed.  It  is  supposed 
to  be  derived  from  Ps.  xvi.  10;  Acts  ii.  27;  1  Pet.  iv.  18-20. 

1st.  The  Catholic  Church,  on  the  basis  of  ancient  tradition, 
interpret  this  phrase  to  mean  that  Christ  after  his  death  went 
in  his  entire  person  as  God-man,  to  the  Limbus  Patrum,  that 
department  of  Hades  in  which  the  Old  Testament  saints  re- 
mained waiting  for  the  revelation  and  application  to  them  of 
his  salvation.  Here  he  preached  the  gospel,  and  brought  them 
out  to  heaven.     See  below  the  "  Cat.  Council  of  Trent." 

2d.  The  Lutherans  hold  that  Christ's  death  was  the  last 
stage  in  his  humiliation,  and  his  descent  to  Hades  the  first 
stage  of  his  exaltation,  since  he  went  to  reveal  and  consum- 
mate his  victory  over  Satan  and  the  powers  of  darkness,  and 
to  pronounce  their  sentence  of  condemnation. 

3d.  The  Church  of  England  affirms  in  the  3d  Article — "As 
Christ  died  for  us  and  was  buried,  so  also  it  is  to  be  believed 
that  he  went  down  into  hell."  In  the  first  book  of  Edward  VI. 
it  is  stated  more  fully — "  The  body  of  Christ  lay  in  the  sepul- 
chre until  his  resurrection,  but  his  ghost  departing  from  him, 
was  with  the  ghosts  which  were  in  prison,  or  in  hell,  and  did 
preach  to  the  same,  as  the  place  of  St.  Peter  doth  testify." 
Bishop  Pearson,  in  his  "Exposition  of  the  Creed"  teaches  that 
Christ  really  went  to  the  place  of  the  damned  to  consummate 
the  expiation  of  human  sin,  and  to  destroy  the  power  of  hell 
over  his  redeemed. 

4th.  Calvin  ("  Institutes,"  Bk.  2,  ch.  xvi.,  §  10)  interprets 
this  phrase  metaphorically,  as  expressing  the  penal  sufferings 
of  Christ  on  the  cross.  Our  "  Conf.  Faith  "  affixes  to  the  Creed 
the  explanatory  clause,  "continued  in  the  state  of  the  dead," 
and  the  American  Episcopal  Church  affixes  the  equivalent 
clause,  "he  went  into  the  place  of  departed  spirits."  That  is, 
Christ  was  a  real  man,  consisting  of  soul  and  body,  and  his 
death  was  a  real  death,  his  soul  leaving  the  body  and  going 
into  the  invisible  world  of  spirits,  where  it  continued  a  sep 
arate  conscious  existence  until  his  resurrection. 


440  MEDIATORIAL    KINGSHIP    OF   CHRIST. 

24.  What  is  the  true  meaning  of  1  Pet.  iii  19-21  ? 

This  passage  is  very  obscure.  The  Romish  interpretation  ia 
shown  in  the  answer  to  the  preceding  question,  i.  e.,  that  Christ 
went  to  the  Limbus  Patrum  and  preached  the  gospel  to  those 
imprisoned  spirits  that  were  awaiting  his  advent. 

The  common  Protestant  interpretation  is  that  Christ  was 
put  to  death  in  the  body,  but  quickened,  or  restored  to  life  by 
the  Spirit,  by  which  Spirit,  inspiring  Noah  as  a  preacher  of 
righteousness,  Christ  many  centuries  previously  had  descended 
from  heaven,  and  preached  to  the  men  of  that  generation,  who 
in  their  sin  and  unbelief  were  the  "  spirits  in  prison."  Only 
eight  persons  believed  and  were  saved;  therefore,  Christian 
professors  and  teachers  ought  not  to  faint  because  of  the 
unbelief  of  mankind  now. 

Another  interpretation,  suggested  by  Archbishop  Leighton 
in  a  note,  as  his  last  opinion,  and  expounded  at  large  by  the 
late  Dr.  John  Brown,  of  Edinburgh,  is,  that  Christ  dying  in  the 
body  as  a  vicarious  sacrifice  is  quickened  in  the  spirit,  i.  e., 
spiritually  quickened,  manifested  as  a  complete  Saviour  in  a 
higher  degree  than  was  possible  before,  as  a  grain  of  wheat 
dying  he  began  to  bear  much  fruit;  and  thus  quickened, 
he  now,  through  the  inspiration  of  his  Spirit,  preached  to 
"  spirits  in  prison,"  i.  e.,  prisoners  of  sin  and  Satan,  just  as  he 
had  before  done,  though  with  less  power,  through  Noah  and 
all  the  prophets,  when  the  spirits  were  disobedient;  under  the 
ministry  of  Noah  only  eight  souls  being  saved ;  but  since  Christ 
was  quickened  in  spirit,  i.  e.,  manifested  as  a  complete  Saviour, 
multitudes  believed. 

25.  Wherein  does  Christ's  exaltation  consist  ? 

"Shorter  Cat,"  Question  28,  "Larger  Cat.,"  Questions  51-54. 

26.  In  what  sense  ivas  it  possible  for  the  co-equal  Son  of  God  to 
be  exalted  ? 

As  the  co-equal  Son  of  God  this  was  impossible,  yet  his  per- 
son as  God-man  was  capable  of  exaltation  in  several  respects. 

1st.  Through  the  union  of  the  divine  and  human  natures, 
the  outward  manifestations  of  the  glory  of  his  person  had  been 
veiled  from  the  eyes  of  creatures.  2d.  As  Mediator  he  occupied 
officially  a  position  inferior  to  the  Father,  condescending  to  oc- 
cupy the  place  of  sinners.  He  had  been  inconceivably  humbled, 
and,  as  a  reward  consequent  upon  his  voluntary  self-humilia- 
tion, the  Father  highly  exalted  him. — Phil.  ii.  8,  9;  Heb.  xii.  2; 
llev.  v.  6.  3d.  His  human  soul  and  body  were  inconceivably 
exalted. — Matt.  xvii.  2;  Rev.  i.  12-16;  xx.  11. 


THE   EXALTATION   OF   CHRIST.  441 

27.  What  are  tlue  various  sources  of  proof  by  which  (lie  reswr* 
rection  of  Christ  is  established  ? 

1st.  The  Old  Testament  predicted  it.  Compare  Ps.  xvi.  10, 
and  Acts  ii.  24-31.  All  the  other  predictions  concerning  the 
Messiah  were  fulfilled  in  Christ,  therefore  this. 

2d.  Christ  predicted  it,  and  therefore,  if  he  was  a  true 
prophet,  he  must  have  risen. — Matt.  xx.  19 ;  John  x.  18. 

3d.  The  event,  his  extraordinary  origin  and  character  con- 
sidered, is  not  antecedently  improbable. 

4th.  The  testimony  of  the  eleven  apostles.  These  men  are 
proved  by  their  writings  to  have  been  good,  intelligent,  and 
serious,  and  they  each  had  every  opportunity  of  ascertaining 
the  fact,  and  they  sealed  their  sincerity  with  their  blood. — 
Acts  i.  3. 

5th.  The  separate  testimony  of  Paul,  who,  as  one  born  out 
of  due  time,  saw  his  risen  Lord,  and  derived  his  revelation  and 
commission  from  him  in  person. — 1  Cor.  xv.  8;  Gal.  i.  12;  Acts 
ix.  3-8. 

6th.  He  was  seen  by  five  hundred  brethren  at  once,  to  whom 
Paul  appeals. — Cor.  xv.  6. 

7th.  The  change  of  the  Sabbath,  from  the  last  to  the  first 
day  of  the  week,  is  a  monument  of  the  concurrent  testimony 
of  the  whole  of  the  first  generation  of  Christians,  to  the  fact 
that  they  believed  that  Christ  rose  from  the  dead. 

8th.  The  miracles  wrought  by  the  apostles  were  God's  seals 
to  their  testimony  that  he  had  raised  Christ. — Heb  ii.  4. 

9th.  The  accompanying  witness  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  honox- 
ing  the  apostles'  doctrine  and  ministry  not  merely  by  mirac- 
ulous gifts,  but  by  his  sanctifying,  elevating,  and  consoling 
power. — Acts  v.  32.     Dr.  Hodge. 

28.  By  whose  power  did  Christ  rise  from  the  dead  ? 

The  Scriptures  ascribe  his  resurrection — 

1st.  To  himself. — John  ii.  19 ;  x.  17. 

2d.  To  the  Father.— Acts  xiii.  33;  Eom.  x.  9;  Eph.  i.  20. 

This  is  reconciled  upon  the  principle  that  all  acts  of  divine 

Eower,  terminating  upon  objects  external  to  the  Godhead,  may 
e  attributed  to  either  of  the  divine  persons,  or  to  the  Godhead 
absolutely. — John  v.  17-19. 

29.  On  what  ground  does  the  apostle  declare  that  our  faith  is 
vain  if  Christ  be  not  risen  (1  Cor.  xv.  14)? 

1st.  If  Christ  be  risen  indeed,  then  he  is  the  true  Messiah, 
and  all  the  prophecies  of  both  dispensations  have  in  that  fact 


442  MEDIATORIAL    KINGSHIP    OF   CHRIST. 

a  pledge  of  their  fulfilment.  If  he  has  not  risen,  then  are  they 
all  false. 

2d.  The  resurrection  proved  him  to  he  the  Son  of  God,  Rom. 
i.  4,  for  (1)  he  rose  by  his  own  power,  (2)  it  authenticated  all 
his  claims  with  respect  to  himself. 

3d.  In  the  resurrection  of  Christ  the  Father  publicly  declared 
his  approbation  and  acceptance  of  Christ's  work  as  surety  of  his 
people. — Rom.  iv.  25. 

4th.  If  Christ  has  risen,  we  have  an  advocate  with  the  Fa- 
ther.—Rom.  viii.  34;  Heb.  9,  11,  12,  24. 

5th.  If  Christ  be  raised,  we  have  assurance  of  eternal  life; 
if  he  lives,  we  shall  live  also. — John  xiv.  19;  1  Pet.  i.  3-5. 

6th.  Owing  to  the  union  between  Christ  and  his  members, 
which  is  both  federal  and  spiritual,  his  resurrection  secures 
ours,  (1)  because,  as  we  died  in  Adam,  so  we  must  live  in 
Christ,  1  Cor.  xv.  21,  22;  (2)  because  of  his  Spirit,  that  dwell- 
eth  in  us. — Rom.  viii.  11;  1  Cor.  vi.  15;  1  Thess.  iv.  14. 

7th.  Christ's  resurrection  illustrates  and  determines  the  na- 
ture of  our  resurrection  as  well  as  secures  it. — 1  Cor.  xv.  49 ; 
Phil.  iii.  21 ;  1  John  iii.  2.     Dr.  Hodge. 

30.  When,  at  what  place,  and  in  whose  presence  did  Christ 
ascend? 

He  ascended  forty  days  after  his  resurrection,  from  a  portion 
of  the  Mount  of  Olives,  near  to  the  village  of  Bethany,  in  the 
presence  of  the  eleven  apostles,  and  possibly  of  other  disciples, 
while  he  was  in  the  act  of  blessing  them,  and  while  they  beheld 
him,  and  were  looking  steadfastly.  Luke  says,  moreover,  that 
there  were  two  glorified  men  present,  who  are  conjectured  by 
Professor  J.  A.  Alexander  to  have  been  Moses  and  Elijah.  He 
was  attended  also  with  angels  celebrating  his  victory  over  sin, 
and  his  exaltation  to  his  mediatorial  throne. — Luke  xxiv.  50,  51 ; 
Mark  xvi.  19;  Acts  i  9-11;  Eph.  iv.  8;  Col.  ii.  13-15;  Ps.  xxiv. 
7-10;  lxviii.  18. 

31.  What  are  the  different  opinions  as  to  the  nature  of  Christ's 
ascension  ? 

Those  who,  as  the  Lutherans,  believe  that  Christ's  body  is 
omnipresent  to  his  church,  of  course,  maintain  that  his  ascen- 
sion consisted  not  in  any  local  change,  but  in  the  withdrawal 
of  his  former  sensible  intercourse  with  his  disciples. 

It  is  certain,  however,  that  his  human  soul  and  body  did 
actually  pass  up  from  earth  to  the  abode  of  the  oiessed,  and 
that  his  entire  person,  as  the  God-man,  was  gloriously  exalted. 
He  ascended  as  Mediator,  triumphing  over  his  enemies,  and 


AUTHORITATIVE    STATEMENTS    OF  DOCTRINE.         443 

giving  gifts  to  his  friends,  Eph.  iv.  8-12 ;  to  complete  his  me- 
diatorial work,  John  xiv.  2,  3 ;  as  the  Forerunner  of  his  people, 
Heb.  vi.  20;  and  to  fill  the  universe  with  the  manifestations  of 
his  glory  and  power. — Eph.  iv.  10. 

32.  What  is  included  in  Christ's  sitting  at  the  right  hand  of  the 
Father  ? 

See  Ps.  ex.  1;  Mark  xvi.  19;  Kom.  viii.  34;  Eph.  i.  20,  22; 
Col.  iii.  1;  Heb.  i.  3,  4;  x.  12;  1  Pet.  iii.  22. 

This  language  is  evidently  figurative,  yet  it  very  expres- 
sively sets  forth  the  supreme  glorification  of  Christ  in  heaven. 
It  presents  him  as  the  God-man,  and  in  his  office  as  Mediator 
exalted  to  supreme  and  universal  glory,  felicity,  and  power  over 
all  principalities  and  powers,  and  every  name  that  is  named. — 
Heb.  ii.  9;  Ps.  xvi.  11;  Matt.  xxvi.  64;  Dan.  vii.  13,  14;  Phil, 
ii.  9,  11 ;  John  v.  22 ;  Rev.  v.  6.  Thus  publicly  assuming  his 
throne  as  mediatorial  Priest  and  King  over  the  universe  for 
the  benefit  of  his  church. 

Seated  upon  that  throne  he,  during  the  present  dispensation, 
as  Mediator,  effectually  applies  to  his  people,  through  his  Spirit, 
that  salvation  which  he  had  previously  achieved  for  them  in  his 
estate  of  humiliation. 


AUTHORITATIVE  STATEMENTS   OF  DOCTRINES. 

Boman  Doctrine. — "Gat.  Cone.  Trent,"  Pt.  1,  cli.  6. — "Therefore  we 
profess  that,  immediately  Christ  was  dead,  his  soul  descended  into  hell 
.  .  But  in  these  words  we  at  the  same  time  confess,  that  the  same  per- 
son of  Christ  was  at  the  same  time,  in  hell  and  in  the  sepulchre,  for  .  . 
although  his  soul  departed  from  his  body,  his  divinity  was  never  sep- 
arated either  from  soul  or  body.  .  .  The  word  "hell"  signifies  those 
hidden  abodes  in  which  are  detained  souls  that  have  not  attained  heavenly 
bliss.  .  .  These  abodes  were  not  all  of  the  same  kind.  .  .  A  third 
sort  of  receptacle  is  that  in  which  were  received  the  souls  of  the  saints 
who  died  before  the  coming  of  Christ  our  Lord;  and  where,  without  any 
sense  of  pain,  sustained  by  the  blessed  hope  of  redemption,  they  enjoyed 
a  tranquil  abode.  The  souls,  then,  of  these  pious  men,  who  in  the  bosom 
of  Abraham -were  expecting  the  Saviour;  Christ  the  Lord  liberated,  de- 
scending into  hell.  .  .  .  He  descended  not  to  suffer  aught  but  to 
liberate  from  the  miserable  weariness  of  that  captivity  the  holy  and  the 
just,  and  to  impart  to  them  the  fruit  of  his  passion. " 

Lutheran  Doctrine.  "Formula  Concordia?"  (Hase),  p.  788. — "There- 
fore we  believe  simply,  that  the  entire  person,  God  and  man,  after  burial 
descended  to  the  lower  regions,  overcame  Satan,  overthrew  the  infernal 
powers,  and  took  away  from  the  devil  all  force  and  authority."  Pp.  767, 
768. — "By  virtue  of  this  personal  union  and  communion,  he  produced  all 
his  miracles,  and  manifested  his  divine  majesty,  according  to  a  most  free 
will,  when  and  in  what  manner  seemed  good  to  him,  not  only  after  hia 
resurrection  and  ascension  to  heaven,  but  even  in  his  state  of  humilia« 
tion.     Indeed  he  had  this  majesty  immediately  upon  his  conceptior. 


444  MEDIATORIAL    KINGSHIP    OF   CHRIST. 

even  in  the  womb  of  his  mother;  but  as  the  apostle  speaks  (Phil.  ii.  8; 
he  emptied  himself ;  and  as  Dr.  Luther  teaches,  he  had  this  majesty 
secretly  in  the  state  of  his  humiliation,  nor  did  he  use  it  always,  but  as 
often  as  seemed  to  him  good.  But  now,  after  he  has,  not  in  a  common 
manner  like  any  other  holy  person,  ascended  into  the  heavens;  but,  as 
the  Apostle  testifies  (Eph.  iv.  10),  has  ascended  above  all  heavens,  and 
truly  fills  all  things,  and  everywhere  present,  not  only  as  God,  but  also 
as  man,  rules  and  reigns  from  sea  to  sea,  and  even  to  the  ends  of  the 
earth.  .  .  .  These  things,  however,  were  not  done  in  an  earthly 
manner,  but,  as  Dr.  Luther  was  accustomed  to  say,  in  the  way  and  man- 
ner of  the  right  hand  of  God  [pro  modo  et  ratione  dexter a>  Dei),  which  is 
not  any  fixed  and  limited  place  in  heaven,  but  signifies  nothing  else  than 
the  omnipotent  power  of  God  which  fills  heaven  and  earth — into  posses- 
sion of  which  Christ  really  and  truly  comes  as  to  his  humanity  without 
any  confusion  or  equalizing  of  his  natures  (divine  and  human),  either  as 
to  their  essences  or  essential  attributes." 


CHAPTER    XXVIII. 


The  Applicatlan  of  Redemption  accomplished  by  Christ  as  Mediatorial  King  through 
the  Personal  Agency  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

EFFECTUAL  CALLING. 

1.  What  is  the  Neiv  Testament  usage  of  the  words  xaXetv  (to 
caU),  xXrfdis  {calling),  and  xA^ro's  (tJie  called)  ? 

xaXeiv  is  used  in  the  sense,  1st,  of  calling  with  the  voice, 
John  x.  3 ;  Mark  i.  20 ;  2d,  of  calling  forth,  to  summon  author- 
itatively, Acts  iv.  18;  xxiv.  2;  3d,  of  inviting,  Matt.  xxii.  3; 
ix.  13;  1  Tim.  vi.  12.  Many  are  called,  but  few  chosen. 
4th.  Of  the  effectual  call  of  the  Spirit.— Kom.  viii.  28-30;  1  Pet. 
ii.  9;  v.  10.  5th.  Of  an  appointment  to  office. — Heb.  v.  4. 
6th.  In  the  sense  of  naming,  Matt.  i.  21;  xXf/dis  occurs  eleven 
times  in  the  New  Testament,  in  each  instance  it  signifies  the 
effectual  call  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  with  the  exception  of  1  Cor. 
vii.  20,  where  it  is  used  as  synonymous  with  business  or  trade. 
See  Rom.  xi.  29 ;  1  Cor.  i.  26,  etc. — Robinson's  "  Lex." 

xXtjzos  occurs  ten  times  in  the  New  Testament.  It  is  used 
to  signify — 1st.  Those  appointed  to  any  office. — Rom.  i.  1. 
2d.  Those  who  receive  the  external  call  of  the  word. — Matt. 
xx.  16.  3d.  The  effectually  called. — Rom.  i.  7;  viii.  28;  1  Cor., 
i.  2,  24 ;  Jude  i. ;  Rev.  xvii.  14. 

The  very  word  innkipia  (church)  designating  the  company 
of  the  faithful,  the  heirs  of  ail  the  promises,  signifies,  etymolo- 
gically,  the  company  called  forth,  the  body  constituted  by  "  the 
calling." 

2.  What  is  included  in  the  external  caU  ? 

1st.  A  declaration  of  the  plan  of  salvation.  2d.  A  declara- 
tion of  duty  on  the  part  of  the  sinner  to  repent  and  believe. 
3d.  A  declaration  of  the  motives  which  ought  to  influence  the 
sinner's   mind,   such   as   fear  or   hope,  remorse  or  gratitude. 


446  EFFECTUAL    CALLING. 

4th.  A  promise  of  acceptance  in  the  case  of  all  those  who 
comply  with  the  conditions. — Dr.  Hodge. 

3.  Hoi  o  can  it  be  proved  that  the  external  call  to  salvation  is 
made  only  through  tlie  ivord  of  God  ? 

The  law  of  God,  as  impressed  upon  the  moral  constitution 
of  man,  is  natural,  and  inseparable  from  man  as  a  moral  respon- 
sible agent. — Rom.  i.  19,  20;  ii.  14,  15.  But  the  gospel  is  no 
part  of  that  natural  law.  It  is  of  grace,  not  of  nature,  and  it 
can  be  made  known  to  us  only  by  a  special  and  supernatural 
revelation. 

This  is  further  evident,  1st,  because  the  Scriptures  declare 
that  a  knowledge  of  the  word  is  essential  to  salvation,  Rom.  x. 
14-17 ;  and,  2d,  because  they  also  declare  that  those  who  neg- 
lect the  word,  either  written  or  preached,  are  guilty  of  the 
eminent  sin  of  rejecting  all  possibility  of  salvation. — Matt  xi. 
21,  22;  Heb.  ii.  3. 

4.  On  what  principle  is  this  external  call  addressed  equally  to 
the  non-elect  as  well  as  to  the  elect  ? 

That  it  is  addressed  indiscriminately  to  both  classes  is 
proved — 1st.  From  the  express  declaration  of  Scripture. — Matt, 
xxii.  14.  2d.  The  command  to  preach  the  gospel  to  every  crea- 
ture.— Mark  xvi.  15.  3d.  The  promise  to  every  one  who  ac- 
cepts it. — Rev.  xxii.  17.  4th.  The  awful  judgment  pronounced 
upon  those  who  reject  it. — John  iii.  19 ;  xvi.  9. 

It  is  addressed  to  the  non-elect  equally  with  the  elect,  be- 
cause it  is  equally  their  duty  and  interest  to  accept  the  gospel, 
because  the  provisions  of  salvation  are  equally  suited  to  their 
case,  and  abundantly  sufficient  for  all,  and  because  God  intends 
that  its  benefits  shall  actually  accrue  to  every  one  who  accepts  it. 

5.  How  can  it  be  proved  that  there  is  an  internal  spiritual  call 
distinct  from  an  external  one? 

1st.  From  those  passages  which  distinguish  the  Spirit's  influ- 
ence from  that  of  the  word. — John  vi.  45,  64,  65 ;  1  Thess.  i.  5,  6. 
2d.  Those  passages  which  teach  that  the  Spirit's  influence  is 
necessary  to  the  reception  of  the  truth. — Eph.  i.  17.  3d.  Those 
that  refer  all  good  in  man  to  God. — Phil.  ii.  13;  Eph.  ii.  8;  2 
Tim.  ii.  25,  e.  g.,  faith  and  repentance.  4th.  The  Scripture  dis- 
tinguishes between  the  two  calls;  of  the  subjects  of  the  one  it 
is  said,  "  many  are  called  and  few  are  chosen,"  of  the  subjects 
of  the  other  it  is  said,  "  whom  he  called,  them  he  also  justified. 
Of  the  one  he  says,  "  Because  I  have  called,  and  ye  have  re- 
fused."— Prov.  i.  24.     Of  the  other  he  says,  "  Every  man  there- 


THE    VARIOUS    VIEWS    STATED.  447 

fore  who  hath  heard  and  hath  learned  of  the  Father  cometh 
unto  me." — John  vi.  45.  5th.  There  is  an  absolute  necessity 
for  such  an  internal,  spiritual  call,  man  by  nature  is  "  blind " 
and  "dead"  in  trespasses  and  sins. — 1  Cor.  ii.  14;  2  Cor.  iv.  4; 
Eph.  ii.  1. 

6.  What  is  the  Pelagian  view  of  the  internal  call  ? 

Pelagians  deny  original  sin,  and  maintain  that  right  and 
wrong  are  qualities  attaching  only  to  executive  acts  of  the 
will.  They  therefore  assert — 1st.  The  full  ability  of  the  free- 
will of  man  as  much  to  cease  from  sin  at  any  time  as  to  con- 
tinue in  its  practice.  2d.  That  the  Holy  Spirit  produces  no  in- 
ward change  in  the  heart  of  the  subject,  except  as  he  is  the 
author  of  the  Scriptures,  and  as  the  Scriptures  present  moral 
truths  and  motives,  which  of  their  own  nature  exert  a  moral 
influence  upon  the  soul.  They  deny  "  grace  "  altogether  in  the 
Scriptural  sense. 

7.  What  is  the  Semipelagian  view  ? 

These  maintain  that  grace  is  necessary  to  enable  a  man  sue 
cessfully  to  return  unto  God  and  live.  Yet  that  from  the  very 
nature  of  the  human  will  man  must  first  of  himself  desire  to  be 
free  from  sin,  and  to  choose  God  as  his  chief  good,  when  he 
may  expect  God's  aid  in  carrying  his  desires  into  effect.  They 
deny  prevenient  grace,  but  admit  co-operative  grace. 

8.  What  is  the  Arminian  view? 

The  Arminians  admit  the  doctrine  of  man's  total  depravity, 
and  that  in  consequence  thereof  man  is  utterly  unable  to  do 
any  thing  aright  in  the  unaided  exercise  of  his  natural  facul- 
ties. Nevertheless,  as  Christ  died  equally  for  every  man,  suffi- 
cient grace,  enabling  its  subject  to  do  all  that  is  required  of 
him,  is  granted  to  all.  Which  sufficient  grace  becomes  efficient 
only  when  it  is  co-operated  with  and  improved  by  the  sinner. — 
"Apol.  Conf.  Remonstr.,"  p.  162,  b.;  Limborch,  "Theo.  Christ.,' 
4,  12,  8. 

9.  What  is  the  doctrine  on  this  subject  taught  by  the  Symbols 
of  tJie  Lutheran  Church  ? 

They  agree  absolutely  with  the  Reformed  or  Calvinists — 

1st.  That  all  men  are  by  nature  spiritually  dead,  utterly  unable 

either  to  commence  to  turn  to  God,  or  to  co-operate  with  his 

grace  to  that  end  prior  to  regeneration.     2d.  That  the  gracious 

>peration  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  the  human  soul  is  the  sole 


448  EFFECTUAL    CALLING. 

efficient  cause  which  quickens  the  dead  soul  to  life.  Hence — 
3d.  The  foundation  upon  which  the  salvation  of  believers  rests 
is  the  eternal,  gracious  election  of  God  to  salvation.  They  re- 
fuse however  to  take  the  next  step,  and  acknowledge  that  the 
reason  unbelievers  are  not  quickened  is  due  to  the  equally  sov- 
ereign Avithholding  of  regenerating  grace.  They  insist  upon 
attributing  it  solely  to  the  criminal  resistance  to  the  grace,  of 
the  initial  stages  of  which  all  are  the  subjects. — "  Formula  Con- 
cordise,"  Hase,  pp.  579-583,  662-666,  817-821. 

A  and  B  are  alike  sinners,  A  believes  and  B  remains  a  rep- 
robate. The  Pelagian  says,  because  A  willed  to  believe  and  B 
to  r<ject.  The  Semipelagian  says,  because  A  commenced  to 
strive  and  was  helped,  and  B  made  no  effort.  The  Arminian 
says,  because  A  co-operated  with  common  grace,  and  B  did  not. 
The  Lutheran  says,  both  were  utterly  unable  to  co-operate,  but 
B  persistently  resisted  grace,  and  A  ultimately  yielded.  The 
Calvinist  says,  because  A  was  regenerated  by  the  new  creative 
power  of  God's  Spirit,  and  B  was  not. 

10.  What  is  the  Synergistic  vieiv  of  this  point  ? 

At  the  call  of  Maurice,  the  new  elector  of  Saxony,  the 
divines  of  Wittemburg  and  Leipsic  assembled  at  Leipsic,  a.  d. 
1548,  in  conference,  and  on  that  occasion  the  Synergistic  con- 
troversy arose.  The  term  signifies  co-operation.  The  Syner- 
gists were  Lutheran  theologians,  who  departed  from  their  own 
system  on  this  one  subject,  and  adopted  the  position  of  the 
Arminians.  Melanchthon  taught  that  "there  concur  three 
causes  of  a  good  action,  the  word  of  God,  the  Holy  Spirit,  and 
the  human  will  assenting,  not  resisting,  the  word  of  God." 
"  Loci  Communes,"  p.  90. 

11.  What  is  the  common  doctrine  of  tJw  Reformed  Churches  as 
to  the  internal  call? 

That  it  is  an  exercise  of  the  divine  power  upon  the  soul, 
immediate,  spiritual,  and  supernatural,  communicating  a  new 
spiritual  life,  and  thus  making  a  new  mode  of  spiritual  activity 
possible.  That  repentance,  faith,  trust,  hope,  love,  etc.,  are 
purely  and  simply  the  sinner's  own  acts;  but  as  such  are  pos- 
sible to  him  only  in  virtue  of  the  change  wrought  in  the  moral  . 
condition  of  his  faculties  by  the  recreative  power  of  God. — See^-\- 
"Conf.  of  Faith,"  Chap,  x.,  Sections  1  and  2. 

Common  grace  preceding  regeneration  makes  a  superficial 
moral  impression  upon  character  and  action  but  is  generally 
resisted.  The  act  of  grace  which  regenerates,  operating  within 
the  spontaneous  energies  of  the  soul  and  changing  their  char- 


"COMMON"    AND    "EFFICACIOUS"    GRACE.  449 

aeter,  can  neither  be  co-operated  with  nor  resisted.  But  the 
instant  the  soul  is  regenerated  it  begins  to  co-operate  with 
and  sometimes,  alas!  also  to  resist  subsequent  gracious  influ- 
ences prevenient  and  co-operative.  But  upon  the  whole  and 
in  the  end  grace  preserves,  overcomes,  and  saves.  Regenera- 
tion is  styled  by  the  Reformed  Theologians  Conversio  Jiabitualis 
seu  passiva,  i.  e.,  the  change  of  character  in  effecting  which  the 
soul  is  the  subject,  and  not  the  agent  of  action.  Conversion 
they  style  Conversio  actualis  seu  aetiva,  i.  e.,  the  instantly  con- 
sequent change  of  action  in  which  the  soul  still  prompted  and 
aided  by  grace  is  the  only  agent. 

12.  What  diversity  of  opinion  prevails  among  the  Romanists 
upon  this  subject  ? 

The  disciples  of  Augustine  in  that  church,  of  whom  tho 
Jansenists  were  the  most  prominent,  are  orthodox,  but  these 
have  been  almost  universally  overthrown,  and  supplanted  by 
their  enemies  the  Jesuits,  who  are  Semipelagians.  The  Coun- 
cil of  Trent  attempted  to  satisfy  both  parties. — "Council  of 
Trent,"  Sess.  6,  Can.  3  and  4.  The  doctrines  of  Quesnel,  who 
advocated  the  truth  on  this  subject,  were  condemned  in  the 
Bull  "  Unigenitus,"  a.  d.  1713.  Bellarmin  taught  that  the 
same  grace  is  given  to  every  man,  which,  by  the  event  only, 
is  proved  practically  congruous  to  the  nature  of  one  man,  and 
therefore  in  his  case  efficacious,  and  incongruous  to  the  nature 
of  another,  and  therefore  in  his  case  ineffectual. 

13.  What  is  meant  by  "common  grace"  and  how  may  it  be 
sliown  that  the  Spirit  does  operate  upon  the  minds  of  those  who  are 
not  renewed  in  heart? 

"Common  grace"  is  the  restraining  and  persuading  influ- 
ences of  the  Holy  Spirit  acting  only  through  the  truth  revealed 
in  the  gospel,  or  through  the  natural  light  of  reason  and  of 
conscience,  heightening  the  natural  moral  effect  of  such  truth 
upon  the  understanding,  conscience,  and  heart.  It  involves 
no  change  of  heart,  but  simply  an  enhancement  of  the  natural 
powers  of  the  truth,  a  restraint  of  the  evil  passions,  and  an  in- 
crease of  the  natural  emotions  in  view  of  sin,  duty,  and  self- 
interest. 

That  God  does  so  operate  upon  the  hearts  of  the  unregen- 
erate  is  proved,  1st,  from  Scripture,  Gen.  vi.  3;  Acts  vii.  51; 
Heb.  x.  29 ;  2d,  from  universal  experience  and  observation. 

14.  How  does  common  differ  from  efficacious  grace? 

1st.  As  to  its  subjects.     All  men  are  more  or  less  the  sub- 
29 


450  EFFECTUAL    CALLING. 

jects  of  the  one;  only  the  elect  are  subjects  of  the  other. — Rom. 
viii.  30;  xi.  7;  2  Thess.  ii.  13. 

2d.  As  to  its  nature.  Common  grace  is  only  mediate, 
through  the  truth,  and  it  is  merely  moral,  heightening  the 
moral  influence  natural  to  the  truth,  and  exciting  only  the 
natural  powers  of  the  soul,  both  rational  and  moral.  But  effi- 
cacious grace  is  immediate  and  supernatural,  since  it  is  wrought 
directly  in  the  soul  by  the  immediate  energy  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  since  it  implants  a  new  spiritual  life,  and  a  capacity  for  a 
new  mode  of  exercising  the  natural  faculties. 

3d.  As  to  its  effects.  The  effects  of  common  grace  are  su- 
perficial and  transient,  modyifying  the  action,  but  not  chang- 
ing the  nature,  and  its  influence  is  always  more  or  less  con 
sciously  resisted,  as  opposed  to  the  prevailing  dispositions  oi 
the  soul.  But  efficacious  grace,  since  it  acts  not  upon  but  in 
the  will  itself,  changing  the  governing  desires,  and  giving  a 
new  direction  to  the  active  powers  of  the  soul,  is  neither  re- 
sistible nor  irresistible,  but  most  free,  spontaneous,  and  yet 
most  certainly  effectual. 

15.  How  can  it  be  proved  that  this  efficacious  grace  is  confined  to 
the  elect? 

1st.  The  Scriptures  represent  the  elect  as  the  called,  and  the 
called  as  the  elect. — Rom.  viii.  28,  30;  Rev.  xvii.  14.  2d.  This 
effectual  calling  is  said  to  be  based  upon  the  decree  of  election, 
2  Thes.  ii.  13,  14;  2  Tim.  i.  9,  10.  3d.  Sanctification,  justifica- 
tion, and  all  the  temporal  and  eternal  benefits  of  union  with 
Christ  are  declared  to  be  the  effects  of  effectual  calling. — 1  Cor 
i.  2;  Eph.  ii.  5;  Rom.  viii.  30. 

16.  Prove  that  it  is  given  on  account  of  Christ? 

1st.  All  spiritual  blessings  are  given  on  account  of  Christ. 
Eph.  i.  3;  Titus  iii.  5,  6.  2d.  The  Scriptures  specifically  de- 
clare that  we  are  called  in  Christ. — Rom.  viii.  2;  Eph.  ii.  4-6: 
2  Tim.  i.  9. 

17.  What  is  meant  by  saying  that  this  divine  influence  is  im- 
mediate and  supernatural  ? 

It  is  meant,  1st,  to  deny,  (1)  that  it  consists  simply  in 
the  moral  influence  of  the  truth ;  (2)  that  it  consists  simply 
in  the  moral  influence  of  the  Spirit,  heightening  the  moral  in- 
fluence of  the  truth  as  objectively  presented ;  (3)  that  it  excites 
the  mere  natural  powers  of  the  soul.  It  is  meant,  2d,  to  affirm, 
(1)  that  the  Holy  Spirit  acts  immediately  upon  the  soul  from 


GOD    ACTS   IMMEDIATELY   ON    THE    SOUL.  451 

within ;  (2)  that  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  an  exercise  of  recreative 
power,  implants  a  new  moral  nature  or  principle  of  action. 

18.  What  arguments  go  to  show  that  there  is  an  immediate 
influence  of  the  Spirit  on  the  soul,  besides  that  which  is  exerted 
through  the  truth? 

1st.  The  influence  of  the  Spirit  is  distinguished  from  that  of 
the  word. — John  vi.  45,  64,  65 ;  Rom.  xv.  13 ;  1  Cor.  ii  12-15 ; 
1  Thess.  i.  5,  6. 

2d.  A  divine  influence  is  declared  to  be  necessary  to  the 
reception  of  the  truth. — Ps.  cxix.  18;  Acts  xvi.  14;  Eph.  i.  17. 

3d.  Such  an  internal  operation  on  the  heart  is  attributed  to 
God.— Phil.  ii.  13;  2  Thess.  i.  11;  Heb.  xiii.  21. 

4th.  The  gift  of  the  Spirit  is  distinguished  from  the  gift  of 
the  word. — John  xiv.  16;  1  Cor.  hi.  16;  vi.  19;  Eph.  iv.  30. 

5th.  The  nature  of  this  influence  is  evidently  different  from 
that  effected  by  the  truth. — Eph.  i.  19 ;  iii.  7.  And  the  effect 
is  called  a  "new  creation,"  "new  birth,"  etc.,  etc. 

6th.  Man  by  nature  is  dead  in  sin,  and  needs  such  a  direct 
intervention  of  supernatural  power. — Turretin,  "Theo.  Instits.," 
L.  XV.,  Quaestio  4. 

19.  What  are  the  different  reasons  assigned  for  calling  this  grace 
efficacious  ? 

1st.  The  Jesuits  and  the  Arminians,  holding  that  all  men 
receive  sufficient  grace  to  enable  them  to  obey  the  gospel  if 
they  will,  maintain  that  this  grace  becomes  efficacious  when  it 
is  co-operated  with  by  the  will  of  the  individual,  and  in  any 
case  is  proved  to  be  such  only  by  the  event. 

2d.  Bellarmin,  and  others,  maintain  that  the  same  grace 
given  to  all  is  congruous  to  the  moral  nature  of  one  man,  and 
in  that  case  efficacious,  and  incongruous  to  the  nature  of  an- 
other, and  in  his  case  ineffectual. 

3d.  Some  Romanists  have  maintained  what  is  called  the 
doctrine  of  cumulative  influence.  The  consent  of  the  soul  is 
secured  by  the  suasive  influence  of  the  spirit,  rendered  effectual 
by  constant  repetition  and  long  continuance. 

4th.  The  orthodox  doctrine  is  that  the  efficacy  of  this  grace 
is  inherent  in  its  very  nature,  because  it  is  the  exercise  of  the 
mighty  power  of  God  in  the  execution  of  his  eternal  and  un- 
changeable purpose. 

20.  In  what  sense  is  grace  irresistible  ? 

It  must  be  remembered  that  the  true  Christian  is  the  subject 
at  the  same  time  of  those  moral  and  mediate  influences  of  grace 


452  EFFECTUAL    CALLING. 

upon  tJie  will,  common  to  him  and  to  the  unconverted,  and  also 
oi  those  special  influences  of  grace  ivithin  the  ivill,  which  are 
certainly  efficacious.  The  first  class  of  influences  Christians 
may,  and  constantly  do  resist,  through  the  law  of  sin  remain- 
ing in  their  members.  The  second  class  of  influences  are  cer- 
tainly efficacious,  but  are  neither  resistible  nor  irresistible,  be- 
cause they  act  from  within  and  carry  the  will  spontaneously 
with  them.  It  is  to  be  lamented  that  the  term  irresistible 
grace  has  ever  been  used,  since  it  suggests  the  idea  of  a  me- 
chanical and  coercive  influence  upon  an  unwilling  subject,  while, 
in  truth,  it  is  the  transcendent  act  of  the  infinite  Creator,  mak-'i 
ing  the  creature  spontaneously  willing. 

21.  How  can  this  grace  be  proved  to  be  certainly  efficacious  ? 

1st.  By  the  evidence  we  have  given  above,  as  to  its  nature, 
as  the  immediate  operation  of  the  mighty  power  of  God. 

2d.  By  the  description  of  the  work  of  grace.  Men  by  na- 
ture are  "blind,"  "dead,"  "slaves,"  etc.  The  change  effected 
is  a  "  new  creation,"  etc. 

3d.  From  the  promises  of  God,  which  are  certain.  The 
means  which  he  uses  to  vindicate  his  own  faithfulness  must  be 
efficacious. — Ezek.  xxxvi.  26;  xi.  19;  John  vi.  45. 

4th.  From  the  connection  asserted  by  Scripture  between  call- 
ing and  election.  The  called  are  the  elect.  As  God's  decrees 
are  certain,  the  call  must  be  efficacious. — See  above,  Ques.  15. 

5th.  Faith  and  repentance  are  the  gifts  of  God,  and  he  who 
truly  repents  and  believes  is  saved.  Therefore,  the  grace  which 
communicates  those  gifts  is  effectual. — Eph.  ii.  8 ;  Acts  xi.  18 ; 
2  Tim.  ii.  25. 

22.  How  may  it  be  proved  that  this  influence  is  congruous  with 
our  nature  ? 

While  discarding  utterly  the  distinction  made  by  Bellarmin 
(for  which  see  above,  Question  19),  Ave  say  that  efficacious  grace 
is  congruous  to  human  nature  as  such,  in  the  sense  that  the 
Spirit  of  God,  while  exerting  an  immediate  and  recreative  influ- 
ence upon  the  soul,  nevertheless  acts  in  perfect  consistency  with 
the  integrity  of  those  laws  of  our  free,  rational,  and  moral  na- 
ture, which  he  has  himself  constituted.  Even  in  the  miracu- 
lous recreation  of  the  new  birth,  he  acts  upon  our  reasons  and 
upon  our  wills  in  perfect  accordance  with  the  constitution  of 
each.  This  is  certain.  1st.  The  same  God  creates  and  recre- 
ates; his  object  is  not  to  destroy,  but  to  restore  his  own  work. 
2d.  The  Scriptures  and  our  own  experience  teach  that  the  im- 
mediately consequent  acts  of  the  soul  in  the  exercise  of  im- 
planted grace,  are  pre-eminently  rational  and  free.    In  fact,  the 


THE    WORD    THE    INVARIABLE    INSTRUMENT.  453 

soul  never  acted  normally  before. — Ps.  ex.  3;  2  Cor.  iii.  17; 
Phil.  ii.  13.  3d.  This  divine  influence  is  described  by  such 
terms  as  "drawing,"  "teaching,"  "enlightening." — John  vi. 
44,45;  Eph.  i.  18. 

23.  What  do  tlw  Scriptures  teach  as  to  the  connection  of  this 
influence  tvith  the  truth  ? 

In  the  case  of  the  regeneration  of  infants  the  truth,  of 
course,  is  not  used.  In  the  regeneration  of  adults  the  truth 
is  always  present.  In  the  act  of  regeneration  the  Spirit  acts 
immediately  upon  the  soul,  and  changes  its  subjective  state, 
while  the  truth  is  the  object  consciously  apprehended,  upon 
which  the  new  faculties  of  spiritual  discernment  and  the  new 
affections  are  exercised.  The  Spirit  gives  sight,  the  truth  is  the 
light  discerned.  The  Spirit  gives  feeling,  the  truth  presents  the 
object  beloved. — Kom.  x.  14,  17 ;  James  i.  18 ;  John  xvii.  17. 

24.  What  reason  may  be  assigned  for  the  belief  that  the  Spirit 
does  not  renew  those  adults  to  whom  the  truth  is  not  known  ? 

Negatively.  The  Bible  never  leads  us  to  expect  such  an 
extension  of  grace,  and  neither  the  Scriptures  nor  our  own 
experience  among  the  modern  heathen  ever  present  us  with 
any  examples  of  such  a  work. 

Positively.  The  Scriptures  always  associate  all  spiritual 
influence  with  the  truth,  and  declare  the  necessity  of  preach- 
ing the  truth  to  the  end  of  saving  souls. — Kom.  x.  14. 

25.  What  are  the  objections  to  the  Arminian  doctrine  of  suffi- 
cient grace  ? 

They  hold  that  God  has  willed  the  salvation  of  all  men,  and 
therefore  has  called  all  alike,  giving  to  all  a  grace  sufficient, 
if  they  will  improve  it. 

We  object— 1st.  The  external  call  of  the  gospel  has  been 
extended  to  comparatively  few.  The  heathen  are  responsible 
with  the  light  of  nature,  and  under  the  law  of  works,  yet  they 
have  no  means  of  grace. — Rom.  i.  18-20;  ii.  12-15. 

2d.  This  doctrine  is  inconsistent  with  God's  purpose  of  elec- 
tion.— See  above,  Chapter  XL 

3d.  According  to  the  Arminian  system  it  depends  upon  the 
free-will  of  the  man  to  make  the  sufficient  grace  of  God  common 
to  all  men  efficient  in  his  case.  But  the  Scriptures  declare  that 
salvation  is  altogether  of  grace,  and  a  gift  of  God. — Eph.  ii.  8 ; 
2  Tim.  ii.  25 ;  Rom.  ix.  15,  16. 

4th.  The  Scriptures  expressly  declare  that  not  even  all 
who  receive  the  external  call  have  sufficient  grace. — Rom.  ix 
16-24;  xi.  8. 


454  EFFECTUAL    CALLING. 

Authoritative  Statements  of  Doctrine. 

Eoman  Doctrine. — "  Cone.  Trent,"  Sess.  6,  c.  1. — "If  any  one  saith 
that  a  man  can  be  justified  (by  justification  they  mean  the  removal  of 
sin  and  infusion  of  a  gracious  habit  of  soul)  by  his  own  works,  whether 
done  through  the  teaching  of  human  nature,  or  that  of  the  law,  without 
the  grace  of  God  through  Jesus  Christ;  let  him  be  anathema.  C.  2. — If 
any  one  saith,  that  the  grace  of  God,  through  Jesus  Christ,  is  given  only 
for  this,  that  man  may  be  able  more  easily  to  five  justly,  and  to  merit 
eternal  life,  as  if,  by  free-will  without  grace,  he  were  able  to  do  both, 
though  hardly  indeed,  and  with  difficulty,  let  him  be  anathema.  C.  3. — If 
any  one  saith,  that  without  prevenient  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  without  his  help,  man  can  believe,  hope,  love,  or  be  penitent  as  he 
ought,  so  as  that  the  grace  of  justification  may  be  bestowed  upon  him; 
let  him  be  anathema.  C.  4. — If  any  one  says  that  man's  free-will  moved 
and  excited  by  God,  by  assenting  to  God  exciting  and  calling,  nowise 
co-operates  towards  disposing  and  preparing  itself  for  obtaining  the 
grace  of  justification;  that  it  can  not  refuse  its  consent,  if  it  would,  but 
that  as  something  inanimate  it  does  nothing  whatever,  and  is  merely  pas- 
sive; let  him  be  anathema.  Can.  5. — If  any  one  saith  that  since  Adam's 
sin,  the  free-will  of  man  is  lost  and  extinguished;  or  that  it  is  a  thing 
with  only  a  name,  yea  a  name  without  a  reality,  a  figment  in  fine  intro- 
duced into  the  world  by  Satan ;  let  him  be  anathema. " 

Doctrine  op  the  Greek  Church. — "  Jerem.  in  Act.  Witem." — "Even 
after  the  fall  nothing  hinders  man  from  turning  away  from  the  bad,  and 
superinduced  upon  this,  doing  good  and  choosing  the  right,  as  one  who 
has  free-will.  .  .  .  From  all  these  it  is  plain,  that  it  is  our  part  to 
awake  and  to  obey,  and  we  have  ability  to  choose  the  good  as  well  as  the 
bad.  We  need  only  one  thing,  i.  e.,  God's  help,  in  order  to  succeed  in 
the  good  and  be  saved,  and  without  this  help  we  have  no  strength  to 
finish  the  work." 

Lutheran  Doctrine. — "Form.  Concordice,"  p.  662. — "But  before 
man  is  enlightened,  converted,  regenerated,  and  drawn  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  he  is  not  able  of  himself,  and  by  his  own  natural  powers,  in 
things  spiritual  and  (tending)  to  his  own  conversion  and  regeneration, 
to  begin,  to  produce,  or  to  co-operate  in  any  thing,  any  more  than  is  a 
stone  a-stock  or  a  clod. "  lb.  p.  589. — ' '  What  Doctor  Luther  wrote — '  That 
the  will  of  man  holds  itself  purely  passive  in  conversion,'  must  be  re- 
ceived rightly  and  fittingly,  to  wit,  with  respect  to  divine  grace  enkin- 
dling the  new  movements,  that  is,  it  ought  to  be  understood  concerning 
that,  when  the  Spirit  of  God  acts  upon  the  will  of  man  by  the  word 
heard,  or  by  the  use  of  the  sacraments,  and  produces  in  man  conversion 
and  regeneration.  For  after  the  Holy  Spirit  has  wrought  this  very  thing, 
and  has  by  his  own  divine  energy  alone  changed  and  renewed  the  will  of 
man;  then,  indeed,  this  new  will  is  an  instrument  of  the  Holy  Spirit  of 
God,  so  that  it  may  not  only  lay  hold  of  grace,  but  also  co-operate  with 
the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  works  following. " 

Kefoemed  Doctrine. — "  Gonf.  Faith"  ch.  x.,  \  1. — "All  those  whom 
God  hath  predestinated  unto  life,  and  those  only,  he  is  pleased,  in  his 
appointed  and  accepted  time,  effectually  to  call,  by  his  word  and  Spirit, 
out  of  that  state  of  sin  and  death,  in  which  they  are  by  nature,  to  grace 
and  salvation  by  Jesus  Christ;  enlightening  their  minds,  spiritually  and 
savingly  to  understand  the  things  of  God,  taking  away  their  heart  of 
stone,  and  giving  unto  them  a  heart  of  flesh;  renewing  their  wills,  and 
by  his  almighty  power  determining  them  to  that  which  is  good ;  and 


AUTHORITATIVE    STATEMENTS    OF  DOCTRINE.         455 

effectually  drawing  them  to  Jesus  Christ ;  yet  so  as  they  come  most 
freely,  being  made  willing  by  his  grace."  \  2. — "This  effectual  call  is 
of  God's  free  and  special  grace  alone,  not  from  any  thing  at  all  foreseen 
in  man,  who  is  altogether  passive  therein,  until,  being  quickened  and 
renewed  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  is  thereby  enabled  to  answer  this  call, 
and  to  embrace  the  grace  offered  and  conveyed  in  it."  "  L.  Cat.,"  Q.  67; 
"S.  Cat.,"  Q.  31. — "Canons  of  Synod  of  Dort,"  chs.  iii.  and  iv.,  "Bejec. 
Er.,"  Error  4. — "  (They  are  renounced)  who  teach  that  an  unregenerate 
man  is  not  strictly  and  totally  dead  in  sins,  nor  void  of  all  power  as  to 
spiritual  good;  but  that  he  is  able  to  hunger  and  thirst  after  righteous- 
ness, and  to  offer  the  sacrifice  of  a  broken  and  contrite  spirit,  which  is 
accepted  of  God."  Art.  12. — "  (Regeneration)  is  plainly  supernatural,  a 
most  powerful  and  at  the  same  time  most  gentle  operation,  wonderful, 
secret,  and  inexpressible,  not  inferior  to  a  creation,  nor  less  than  a  reviv- 
ing of  the  dead;  so  that  all  those,  in  whose  hearts  God  works  in  this 
wonderful  manner,  are  surely  regenerated  infallibly  and  effectually,  and 
act  faith.  And  then  the  will,  now  renewed,  is  not  only  acted  on  and 
moved  by  God,  but  being  so  moved,  also  itself  acts.  Wherefore  also  man 
himself  is  rightly  said,  through  this  received  grace,  to  believe  and  repent. " 

Remonstrant  Doctktne. — "Conf.  Remonslr."  17,  6. — "Therefore  we 
decide  that  the  grace  of  God  is  the  beginning,  progress,  and  completion 
of  all  good,  so  that  the  regenerate  person  himself,  is  not  able  to  think, 
will,  or  do  any  saving  good,  without  this  previous  prevenient,  exciting, 
following,  and  co-operating  grace." 

" Apol.  Conf.  Hemonstr.,"  p.  162,  b. — "Grace  is  called  efficacious 
from  the  result,  which,  however  can  be  taken  in  a  twofold  sense:  First, 
so  that  grace  may  be  judged  to  have,  of  itself,  no  power  to  produce  con- 
sent in  the  will,  but  its  entire  efficacy  may  depend  upon  the  human  will : 
or,  Secondly,  so  that  grace  may  be  judged  to  have  of  itself  sufficient 
power  to  produce  consent  in  the  will,  but  because  this  power  is  partial, 
it  can  not  go  out  in  act  without  the  co-operation  of  the  free  human  will, 
and  hence,  that  it  may  have  effect,  it  depends  on  free-will.  The  Re- 
monstrants wish  the  "  second  "  to  be  taken  as  their  meaning." 


CHAPTER    XXIX. 

REGENERATION. 

1.  What  are  the  various  Scripture  terms  by  which  this  work 
of  God  is  designated  ? 

1st.  "Creating  anew."— Eph.  iv.  24.  2d.  "Begetting."— 
James  i.  18.  3d.  "Quickening." — John  v.  21;  Eph.  ii.  5.  4th. 
"Calling  out  of  darkness  into  marvellous  light." — 1  Pet.  ii.  9. 
The  subjects  of  it  are  said,  1st,  to  be  "alive  from  the  dead." 
Rom.  vi.  13.  2d.  To  be  "new  creatures." — 2  Cor.  v.  17.  3d. 
To  be  "born  again." — John  iii.  3,  7.  4th.  To  be  "God's  work- 
manship."— Eph.  ii.  10. 

2.  What  is  the  Pelagian  view  of  regeneration  ? 

They  hold  that  sin  can  be  predicated  only  of  volitions,  and 
that  it  is  essential  to  the  liberty  and  responsibility  of  man  that 
he  is  always  as  able  to  cease  from  as  to  continue  in  sin.  Re- 
generation is  therefore  a  mere  reformation  of  life  and  habit. 
The  man  who  has  chosen  to  transgress  the  law,  now  chooses 
to  obey  it. 

3.  What  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Romish  church  on  this  subject  ? 

The  Romanists,  1st,  confound  together  justification  and 
sanctification,  making  these  one  act  of  God,  whereby,  for  his 
own  glory,  for  Christ's  merits'  sake,  by  the  efficient  powers  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  through  the  instrumentality  ol  baptism, 
he  at  once  cancels  the  guilt  of  our  sins,  and  delivers  us  from 
the  inherent  power  and  defilement  of  original  sin. — "Council 
of  Trent,"  Sess.  6,  Chap.  vii. 

2d.  They  hold  the  doctrine  that  regeneration  is  accomplished 
only  through  the  instrumentality  of  baptism.  This  is  effectual 
in  every  instance  of  its  application  to  an  infant.  In  the  case 
of  adults  its  virtue  may  be  either  resisted  and  nullified,  or  re- 
ceived and  improved.  In  baptism  (1)  sins  are  forgiven ;  (2)  the 
moral  nature  of  the  subject  is  renewed,  ( 3)  he  is  made  a  son 
and  heir  of  God. — "Cat.  Rom.,"  Part  II.,  Chap.  ii. 


VARIOUS    VIEWS    STATED.  457 

4.  What  are  the  different  views  as  to  baptismal  regeneration 
entertained  in  the  Church  of  England  ? 

1st.  The  theory  of  the  party  styled  Puseyite,  which  is  es- 
sentially the  same  with  that  of  the  Komish  church.  They 
hold  in  general  that  the  Holy  Spirit,  through  the  instrumen- 
tality of  baptism,  implants  a  germ  of  spiritual  life  in  the  soul, 
which  may  long  remain  latent,  and  may  be  subsequently  de- 
veloped, or  blasted. 

2d.  That  of  a  large  party  most  ably  represented  by  the 
late  Bishop  H.  U.  Onderdonk,  in  his  "  Essay  on  Eegeneration," 
Phila.,  1835.  He  maintained  that  there  are  two  distinct  regen- 
erations; one  a  change  of  state  or  relation,  and  the  other  a  change 
of  nature.  The  first  is  baptismal,  the  second  moral,  though  both 
are  spiritual  in  so  far  as  both  are  wrought  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 
The  first  or  baptismal  regeneration  is  a  new  birth,  since  it  con- 
stitutes us  sons  of  God,  as  the  Jews  were  made  his  peculiar 
people  by  that  covenant,  the  seal  of  which  was  circumcision. 
The  second  is  a  new  birth,  or  creation  in  a  higher  sense,  being 
a  gradual  sanctifying  change  wrought  in  the  whole  moral  char- 
acter by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  not  necessarily  connected  with 
baptism. 

5.  What  view  of  regeneration  is  held  by  those  in  America  who 
maintain  the  "Exercise  Scheme"? 

These  theologians  deny  the  existence  in  the  soul  of  any  per- 
manent moral  habits  or  dispositions,  and  admit  the  existence 
only  of  the  soul  or  agent  and  his  acts  or  "exercises."  In  the 
natural  man  the  series  of  acts  are  wholly  depraved.  In  the  re- 
generated man  a  new  series  of  holy  acts  are  created  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  continued  by  his  power. — Emmons,  Sermon 
LXIV.,  on  the  "New  Birth." 

6.  What  is  the  New  Haven  view,  advocated  by  Dr.  N.  W. 
Taylor,  on  this  subject  ? 

Dr.  Taylor  agreed  with  the  advocates  of  the  "Exercise 
Scheme,"  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  soul  but  the  agent  and 
his  actions;  but  he  differed  from  them  by  holding  that  man 
and  not  God  is  the  independent  author  of  human  actions.  He 
held  that  when  God  and  the  world  is  held  up  before  the  mind, 
regeneration  consists  in  an  act  of  the  sinner  in  choosing  God 
as  his  chief  good,  thus  confounding  regeneration  and  conver- 
sion. The  Holy  Spirit,  in  some  unknown  way,  assists  in  re- 
straining the  active  operation  of  the  natural,  selfish  principle 
which  prefers  the  world  as  its  chief  good.  "A  mind  thus  de- 
tached from  the  world  as  its  supreme  good  instantly  chooses 


458  REGENERATION. 

God  for  its  portion,  under  the  impulse  of  that  inherent  desire 
for  happiness,  without  which  no  object  could  ever  be  regarded 
as  good,  as  either  desirable  or  lovely."  This  original  motive 
to  that  choice  of  God  which  is  regeneration  is  merely  natural, 
and  neither  morally  good  nor  bad.  Thus — 1st.  Regeneration 
is  man's  own  act.  2d.  The  Holy  Spirit  helps  man,  (1)  by  sus- 
pending the  controlling  power  of  his  sinful,  selfish  disposition ; 
(2)  by  presenting  to  his  mind  in  the  clear  light  of  truth  the 
superiority  of  God  as  an  object  of  choice.  3d.  Then  the  sinner 
chooses  God  as  his  chief  good  under  the  conviction  of  his  un- 
derstanding, and  from  a  motive  of  natural,  though  not  sinful, 
self-love,  which  is  to  be  distinguished  from  selfishness,  which 
is  of  the  essence  of  sin. — See  "  Christian  Spectator,"  December, 
1829,  pp.  693,  694,  etc. 

7.  What  is  the  common  doctrine  Jield  by  evangelical  Christians  ? 

1st.  That  there  are  in  the  soul,  besides  its  several  faculties, 
habits,  or  dispositions,  of  which  some  are  innate  and  others 
are  acquired,  which  lay  the  foundation  for  the  soul's  exercising 
its  faculties  in  some  particular  way.  Thus  we  intuitively  judge 
a  man's  moral  disposition  to  be  permanently  evil  when  we  see 
him  habitually  acting  sinfully,  or  to  be  permanently  good  when 
we  see  him  habitually  acting  righteously. 

2d.  These  dispositions  are  anterior  to  moral  action,  and  de- 
termine its  character  as  good  or  evil. 

3d.  In  creation  God  made  the  disposition  of  Adam's  heart 
holy. 

4th.  In  the  new  creation  God  recreates  the  governing  dis- 
position of  the  regenerated  man's  heart  holy. 

It  is,  therefore,  properly  called  a  "  regeneration,"  a  "  new 
creation,"  a  "new  birth." 

8.  Wlien  it  is  said  that  regeneration  consists  in  giving  a  new 
heart,  or  in  implanting  a  new  principle  or  disposition,  what  is  meant 
by  the  terms  "lieart,"  "principle,"  or  "disposition" ? 

President  Edwards  says,  "  By  a  principle  of  nature  in  this 
place,  I  mean  that  foundation  which  is  laid  in  nature,  either 
old  or  new,  for  any  particular  kind  or  manner  of  exercise  of 
the  faculties  of  the  soul.  So  this  new  '  spiritual  sense '  is  not 
a  new  faculty  of  understanding,  but  it  is  a  new  foundation  laid 
in  the  nature  of  the  soul  for  a  new  kind  of  exercise  of  the  same 
faculty  of  understanding.  So  that  new  holy  disposition  of  heart 
that  attends  this  new  sense  is  not  a  new  faculty  of  will,  but  a 
foundation  laid  in  the  nature  of  the  soul  for  a  new  kind  of 
exercise  of  the  same  faculty  of  will." — Edwards  on  "  Religious 
Affections,"  Pt  III,  sec.  1. 


IT  INVOLVES   NO    PHYSICAL    CHANGE.  459 

The  term  "heart,"  signifying  that  prevailing  moral  dispo- 
sition that  determines  the  volitions  and  actions,  is  the  phrase 
most  commonly  used  in  Scripture. — Matt.  xii.  33,  35;  xv.  19; 
Luke  vi.  43,  45. 

9.  Hoio  may  it  be  shown  that  this  view  of  regeneration  does  not 
represent  it  as  involving  any  change  in  the  essence  of  the  soul  ? 

This  charge  is  brought  against  the  orthodox  doctrine  by  all 
those  who  deny  that  there  is  any  thing  in  the  soul  but  its  con- 
stitutional faculties  and  their  exercises.  They  hence  argue  that 
if  any  thing  be  changed  except  the  mere  exercises  of  the  soul, 
its  fundamental  constitution  would  be  physically  altered.  In 
opposition  to  this,  we  argue  that  we  have  precisely  the  same 
evidence  for  the  existence  of  a  permanent  moral  quality  or 
disposition  inherent  in  the  will,  as  the  reason  why  a  good 
man  acts  habitually  righteously,  or  a  bad  man  viciously,  that 
we  have  for  the  existence  of  the  invisible  soul  itself,  or  of  any 
of  its  faculties,  as  the  reason  why  a  man  acts  at  all,  or  why 
his  actions  are  such  as  thought,  emotion,  volition.  It  is  not 
possible  for  us  to  conceive  of  the  choice  being  produced  in  us 
by  the  Holy  Spirit  in  more  than  three  ways:  " First,  by  his 
direct  agency  in  producing  the  choice,  in  which  case  it  would 
be  no  act  of  ours.  Second,  by  addressing  such  motives  to  our 
constitutional  and  natural  principles  of  self-love  as  would  in- 
duce us  to  make  the  choice,  in  which  case  there  would  be  no 
morality  in  the  act.  Or,  thirdly,  by  producing  such  a  relish 
for  the  divine  character,  that  the  soul  as  spontaneously  and 
immediately  rejoices  in  God  as  its  portion  as  it  rejoices  in  the 
perception  of  beauty." 

"  If  our  Maker  can  endow  us,  not  only  with  the  general  sus- 
ceptibility of  love,  but  also  with  a  specific  disposition  to  love 
our  children ;  if  he  can  give  us  a  discernment  and  susceptibility 
of  natural  beauty,  he  may  give  us  a  taste  for  spiritual  loveliness. 
And  if  that  taste,  by  reason  of  sin,  is  vitiated  and  perverted,  he 
may  restore  it  by  means  of  his  spirit  in  regeneration." — Hodge's 
Essays. 

10.  In  what  sense  may  the  soul  be  said  to  be  passive  in  regen- 
eration ? 

Dr.  Taylor  maintains  that  regeneration  is  that  act  of  the 
soul  in  which  man  chooses  God  as  his  portion.  Thus,  the  man 
himself,  and  not  God,  is  the  agent. 

But  the  Christian  church,  on  the  contrary,  holds  that  in 
regeneration  the  Holy  Ghost  is  the  agent,  and  man  the  subject. 
The  act  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  implanting  a  new  principle,  does 
not  interfere  with  the  essential  activity  of  the  soul  itself,  but 


460  REGENERATION. 

simply  gives  to  that  activity  a  new  direction,  for  the  soul, 
though  active,  is  nevertheless  capable  of  being  acted  upon. 
And  although  the  soul  is  necessarily  active  at  the  very  time 
it  is  regenerated,  yet  it  is  rightly  said  to  be  passive  with  respect 
to  that  act  of  the  Holy  Spirit  whereby  it  is  regenerated. 

1st.  The  soul,  under  the  conviction  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
in  the  exercise  of  merely  natural  feelings,  regards  some  aspect 
of  saving  truth,  and  strives  to  embrace  it.  2d.  The  Holy  Ghost, 
by  an  exertion  of  creative  power,  changes  the  governing  dispo- 
sition of  the  heart  in  a  manner  inscrutable,  and  by  an  influence 
not  apprehended  by  the  consciousness  of  the  subject.  3d.  Simul- 
taneously the  soul  exercises  new  affections  and  experimentally 
embraces  the  truth. 

11.  What  is  the  difference  betiveen  regeneration  and  conversion? 

The  term  conversion  is  often  used  in  a  wide  sense  as  includ- 
ing both  the  change  of  nature  and  the  exercise  of  that  nature 
as  changed.  When  distinguished  from  regeneration,  however, 
conversion  signifies  the  first  exercise  of  the  new  disposition 
implanted  in  regeneration,  i.  e.,  in  freely  turning  unto  God. 

Regeneration  is  God's  act;  conversion  is  ours.  Regenera- 
tion is  the  implantation  of  a  gracious  principle ;  conversion  is 
the  exercise  of  that  principle.  Regeneration  is  never  a  matter 
of  direct  consciousness  to  the  subject  of  it;  conversion  always 
is  such  to  the  agent  of  it.  Regeneration  is  a  single  act,  com- 
plete in  itself,  and  never  repeated ;  conversion,  as  the  beginning 
of  holy  living,  is  the  commencement  of  a  series,  constant,  end- 
less, and  progressive.  "  Draw  me,  and  I  will  run  after  thee." 
Cant.  i.  4.  This  distinction  is  signalized  by  the  divines  of 
the  seventeenth  century  (Turretin,  L.  15,  Ques.  4,  §  13)  by  the 
phrases  " conversio  habitualis  sen  passiva"  i.  e.,  the  infusion  of  a 
gracious  habit  of  soul  by  God,  in  respect  to  which  the  subject 
is  passive;  and  " conversio  actualis  sen  activa,"  i.  e.,  the  consequent 
acts  of  faith  and  repentance  elicited  by  co-operative  grace  and 
acted  by  the  subject. 

12.  Hoio  can  it  be  proved  that  there  is  any  suck  thing  as  that 
commonly  called  regeneration  ? 

1st.  By  those  Scriptures  that  declare  such  a  change  to  be 
necessary. — John  iii.  3;  2  Cor.  v.  17;  Gal.  vi.  15. 

2d.  By  those  passages  which  describe  the  change. — Eph. 
ii.  5;  iv.  24;  James  i.  18;  1  Pet.  i.  23. 

3d.  From  the  fact  that  it  was  necessary  for  the  most  moral 
as  well  as  for  the  most  profligate. — 1  Cor.  xv.  10;  Gal.  i.  13-16. 

4th.  That  this  inward  change  is  not  a  mere  reformation  is 


SUPERNATURAL    ILLUMINATION.  461 

?  roved  by  its  being  referred  to  the  Holy  Spirit. — Eph.  i.  19,  20; 
'itus  iii.  5. 

5th.  From  the  comparison  of  man's  state  in  grace  with  his 
state  by  nature. — Kom.  vi.  13;  viii.  6-10;  Eph.  v.  8. 

6th.  From  the  experience  of  all  Christians,  and  from  the 
testimony  of  their  lives. 

13.  What  is  the  nature  of  supernatural  illumination  ? 

The  soul  of  man  is  a  unit.  A  radically  defective  or  per- 
verted condition  of  any  faculty  will  injuriously  affect  the  exer- 
cise of  all  the  other  faculties.  The  essence  of  sin  consists  in 
the  perverted  moral  dispositions  and  affections  of  the  will.  But 
a  perverted  condition  of  these  affections  must  affect  the  exer- 
cises of  the  intellect,  concerning  all  moral  objects,  as  much  as 
the  volitions  themselves.  We  can  not  love  or  desire  any  object 
unless  we  perceive  its  loveliness,  neither  can  we  intellectually 
perceive  its  loveliness  unless  its  qualities  are  congenial  to  our 
inherent  taste  or  dispositions.  Sin,  therefore,  is  essentially 
deceitful,  and  man  as  a  sinner  is  spiritually  blind.  This  does 
not  consist  in  any  physical  defect.  He  possesses  all  the  facul- 
ties requisite  to  enable  him  to  see  the  beauty,  and  to  experi- 
ence the  power  of  the  truth,  but  his  whole  nature  is  morally 
perverted  through  his  evil  dispositions.  As  soon  as  these  are 
changed  he  will  see,  and,  seeing,  love  and  obey  the  truth, 
although  no  constitutional  change  is  wrought  in  his  nature, 
i.  e.,  no  new  faculty  given,  but  only  his  perverted  faculties 
morally  rectified.  This  illumination  is  called  supernatural, 
1st,  because,  having  been  lost,  it  can  be  restored  only  by  the 
immediate  power  of  God.  2d.  In  contradistinction  to  the 
maimed  condition  of  man's  present  depraved  nature.  It,  how- 
ever, conveys  no  new  truths  to  the  mind,  nor ...  does  it  relieve 
the  Christian,  in  any  degree,  from  the  diligent  and  prayerful 
study  of  the  Word,  nor  does  it  lead  to  any  fanciful  interpreta- 
tions of  Scripture  foreign  to  the  plain  sense  of  the  letter;  it  only 
leads  to  the  perception  and  appreciation  of  the  native  spiritual 
beauty  and  power  of  the  inspired  word,  and  the  truths  therein 
revealed. 

14.  How  may  it  be  p'oved  that  believers  are  the  subjects  of  such 
illumination  ? 

1st.  It  is  necessary. — 1  Cor.  ii.  14;  2  Cor.  iii.  14;  iv.  3, 
John  xvi.  3.  From  the  constitution  of  our  nature  we  must 
apprehend  an  object  as  lovely  before  we  can  love  it  for  its  own 
sake. 

2d.  The  Scriptures  expressly  affirm  it.  "  To  know  God  is 
eternal  life."— John  xvii.  3;  1  Cor.  ii.  12,  13;  2  Cor.  iv.  6;  Eph. 


462  REGENERATION. 

i.  18;  Phil.  i.  9;  Col.  iii.  10;  1  John  iv.  7;  v.  20;  Ps.  xix.  7.  8-, 
xliii.  3,  4. 

As  the  soul  is  a  unit,  a  change  in  its  radical  moral  disposi- 
tions must  simultaneously  modify  the  exercise  of  all  its  facul- 
ties in  relation  to  moral  and  spiritual  objects.  The  soul  can 
not  love  that  the  loveliness  of  which  it  does  not  perceive,  neither 
can  it  perceive  the  loveliness  of  an  object  which  is  totally  un- 
congenial to  its  own  nature.  The  first  effect  of  regeneration, 
or  a  radical  change  of  moral  disposition,  in  the  order  of  nature, 
therefore,  is  to  open  the  eyes  of  our  understandings  to  the 
excellency  of  divine  truth,  and  the  second  effect  is  the  going 
forth  of  the  renewed  affections  toward  that  excellency  so  per- 
ceived. This  is  what  Pres.  Edwards  ("Keligious  Affections," 
Pt.  III.,  sec.  4)  calls  "the  sense  of  the  Mart." 

15.  What  is  tlie  nature  of  that  conviction  of  sin  which  is  tlvt 
attendant  of  regeneration  ? 

Spiritual  illumination  immediately  leads  to  the  perception 
of  the  righteousness,  goodness,  and  exceeding  breadth  and 
exactness  of  God's  law,  and  by  contrast  of  the  exceeding  sin- 
fulness of  sin  in  the  abstract,  Eom.  vii.  7,  13 ;  and  above  all  of 
his  own  sin — thus  revealing,  in  contrast  to  the  divine  purity 
and  righteousness,  the  pollution  of  his  own  heart,  his  total  ill- 
desert,  and  his  entire  helplessness  in  all  his  relations  to  God. 
Job  xlii.  5,  6.  This  is  a  practical  experimental  knowledge, — 
produced  by  the  wrestling  eXsyxot,  of  the  Holy  Ghost  (John 
xvi.  8) — of  guilt,  of  pollution,  and  of  helplessness. 

16.  What  is  the  nature  of  that  conviction  of  sin  which  often 
occurs  before  or  without  regeneration,  and  how  may  it  be  distin- 
guislied  from  the  genuine  ? 

Natural  conscience  is  an  essential  and  indestructible  element 
of  human  nature,  including  a  sense  of  right  and  wrong,  and  pain- 
ful emotions  associated  with  a  sense  of  the  latter.  Although 
this  faculty  may  be  for  a  time  perverted,  and  the  sensibility 
asscciatcd  with  it  hardened,  yet  it  may  be,  and  often  is,  in  the 
case  of  the  unregenerate,  quickened  to  a  painful  activity,  lead- 
ing to  a  sense  of  ill-desert,  pollution,  helplessness,  and  danger. 
In  eternity  this  will  constitute  a  large  measure  of  the  suffer- 
ings of  the  lost. 

On  the  other  hand,  that  conviction  of  sin  which  is  peculiar 
to  the  regenerate  is  distinguished  by  being  accompanied  by  a 
sense  of  the  positive  beauty  of  holiness,  and  an  earnest  desire 
to  escape  not  merely  the  pangs  of  remorse,  but  chiefly  the 
pollution  and  the  dominion  of  sin. 


ITS   ABSOLUTE   NECESSITY.  463 

17.  What  is  the  nature  of  those  new  affections  which  flow  from 
the  renewal  of  the  heart,  and  luow  are  tJiey  distinguished  from  tite 
exercises  of  unrenewed  men  ? 

Spiritual  illumination  gives  the  perception  of  that  loveliness 
which  the  renewed  affections  of  the  heart  embrace  and  delight 
in.  These  are  spiritual  because  they  are  formed  in  us,  and 
preserved  in  healthy  exercise  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  They  are 
holy  because  their  objects  are  holy,  and  because  they  delight 
in  their  objects  as  holy.  The  affections  of  unrenewed  men,  on 
the  other  hand,  however  pure  or  even  religious  they  may  be, 
are  merely  natural  in  their  source,  and  attach  merely  to  natural 
objects.  They  may  be  grateful  to  God  for  his  benefits,  but  they 
never  love  him  simply  for  the  perfections  of  his  own  nature. 

18.  What  is  the  nature  of  that  new  obedience  which  results  from 
regeneration,  and  how  does  it  differ  from  mere  morality  ? 

The  perfect  law  is  spiritual,  and  consequently  requires  per- 
fect conformity  of  being  as  well  as  of  action ;  the  central  and 
governing  principles  of  life  must  be  in  harmony  with  it.  The 
regenerate  man,  therefore,  thinks,  and  feels,  and  wills,  and  acts 
in  conformity  with  the  spirit  of  the  whole  word  of  God  as  far 
as  revealed  to  him,  because  it  is  God's  word,  from  a  motive  of 
love  to  God,  and  with  an  eye  single  to  his  glory.  The  sancti- 
fied affections  are  the  spring,  the  heart-searching  law  the  rule, 
and  the  glory  of  God  the  end,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  the  co- 
worker in  every  act  of  Christian  obedience. 

Morality,  on  the  other  hand,  has  its  spring  in  the  merely 
natural  affections;  it  aims  only  at  the  conformity  of  the  outward 
actions  to  the  letter  of  the  law,  while  self,  in  some  form  of  self- 
righteousness,  reputation,  safety,  or  happiness,  is  the  determin- 
ing end. 

19.  How  may  the  absolute  necessity  of  regeneration  be  proved? 

1st.  The  Scriptures  assert  it. — John  iii.  3;  Rom.  viii.  6;  Eph. 
ii.  10;  iv.  21-24.  2d.  It  is  proved  from  the  nature  of  man  as  a 
sinner. — Eom.  vii.  18;  viii.  7-9;  1  Cor.  ii.  14;  Eph.  ii.  1.  3d. 
^rom  the  nature  of  heaven. — Isa.  xxxv.  8;  Hi.  1;  Matt.  v.  8; 
xiii.  41;  Heb.  xii.  14;  Rev.  xxi.  27.  The  restoration  of  holiness 
is  the  grand  end  of  the  whole  plan  of  salvation. — Eph.  i.  4; 
v.  5,  26,  27. 

20.  Are  infants  susceptible  of  regeneration;  and,  if  so,  what  is 
the  nature  of  regeneration  in  than  ? 

Infants,  as  well  as  adults,  are  rational  and  moral  agents, 
and  by  nature  totally  depraved.     The  difference  is,  that  the 


464  REGENERA  TION. 

faculties  of  infants  are  in  the  germ,  while  those  of  adults  are 
developed.  As  regeneration  is  a  change  wrought  by  creative 
power  in  the  inherent  moral  condition  of  the  soul,  infants  may 
plainly  be  the  subjects  of  it  in  precisely  the  same  sense  as 
adults ;  in  both  cases  the  operation  is  miraculous,  and  therefore 
inscrutable. 

The  fact  is  established  by  what  the  Scriptures  teach  of  in- 
nate depravity,  of  infant  salvation,  of  infant  circumcision  and 
baptism. — Luke  i.  15;  xviii.  15,  16;  Acts  ii.  39.  See  below, 
Chapter  XLII. 

Authoritative  Statements. 

Boman  Doctrine. — "Cone.  Trent"  Sess.  vi.  Ch.  7. — "Justification 
(Regeneration)  is  not  only  a  remission  of  sins,  but  also  a  renewal  of  the 
inner  man  through,  the  voluntary  reception  of  the  grace  and  gifts  whereby 
a  man  born  unjust  becomes  just,  and  from  an  enemy  becomes  a  friend, 
that  so  he  may  be  an  heir  according  to  the  hope  of  eternal  life.  The 
causes  of  this  justification  are — the  final  cause,  the  glory  of  God  and  of 
Christ,  and  eternal  life;  the  efficient  cause,  the  merciful  God  who  gratu- 
itously washes  and  sanctifies,  sealing  and  anointing  with  the  Holy  Spirit 
of  promise,  who  is  the  earnest  of  our  inheritance;  the  meritorious  cause, 
his  own  most  beloved  and  only  begotten  Son,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
who,  when  we  were  enemies,  did,  on  account  of  the  great  love  where- 
with he  loved  us,  merit  justification  for  us  by  his  most  holy  passion  on 
the  wood  of  the  cross;  and  did  for  us,  make  satisfaction  to  God  the  Fa- 
ther; also  the  instrumental  cause,  the  sacrament  of  baptism,  which  is  the 
sacrament  of  faith,  without  which  (faith)  justification  has  never  come  to 
any  one;  and  finally  the  formal  cause,  is  the  righteousness  of  God,  not 
that  whereby  he  is  himself  righteous,  but  that  whereby  he  makes  us 
righteous,  namely  that  with  which  we,  being  by  him  endowed,  are  re- 
newed in  the  spirit  of  our  mind,  and  are  not  only  reputed,  but  are  truly 
called,  and  are  righteous." 

Lutheran  Doctrine. — "Formula  Concordia;"  (Hase),  page  679. — 
"For  conversion  is  such  a  change  of  the  man  through  the  operation  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  understanding,  will,  and  heart  of  man,  that  he  is 
able  (i.  e.,  by  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit)  to  embrace  the  offered 
grace.  lb.  p.  681. — But  the  understanding  and  will  of  the  man  not  as 
yet  renewed  are  only  the  subject  to  be  converted,  because  they  are  the 
understanding  and  will  of  a  man  spiritually  dead,  in  whom  the  Holy 
Ghost  works  conversion  and  renewal ;  in  which  work  the  man  to  be  con- 
verted contributes  nothing,  but  is  acted  upon,  until  he  is  regenerated. 
But  afterwards  in  other  good  works  enduring,  he  co-operates  with  the 
Holy  Spirit,  doing  those  things  which  are  well  pleasing  to  God,  in  that 
manner  which  has  now  been  declared  by  us  fully  enough  in  this  treatise." 

Beformed  Doctrine  and  Bemonstrant  Doctrine. — See  under  Chap- 
ter XXVHL 


CHAPTER   XXX. 

FAITH. 

1.  What,  according  to  its  etymology  and  Neiv  Testament  usage, 
is  the  meaning  oftJte  word  iti6Tis}  "faith"  "belief?" 

It  is  derived  from  the  verb  TteiQoo,  to  persuade,  convince.  In 
the  New  Testament  it  is  used — 1st.  To  express  that  state  of 
mind  which  is  induced  by  persuasion. — Rom.  xiv.  22.  2d.  It 
often  signifies  good  faith,  fidelity,  sincerity. — Rom.  iii.  3;  Ti- 
tus ii.  10.  3d.  Assent  to  the  truth.— Phil.  i.  27 ;  2  Thes.  ii.  13. 
4th.  Faith  towards,  on,  or  in  God  (km',  eis,  71730s). — Heb.  vi.  1 ; 
1  Thes.  i.  8;  1  Pet.  i.  21;  Mark  xi.  22.  In  Christ,  Acts  xxiv. 
24;  Gal.  iii.  26;  and  in  his  blood,  Rom.  iii.  22,  25;  Gal.  ii.  16,  20. 
5th.  It  is  used  for  the  object  of  faith,  viz.,  the  revelation  of  the 
gospel. — Rom.  i.  5;  x.  8;  1  Tim.  iv.  1.  Robinson's  "Lex.  of 
New  Testament." 

2.  State  the  different  meanings  of  tlie  verb  Tti6rtvEiv  (to  believe), 
and  of  the  phrases  n\6ttvttv  els,  or  km  (to  believe  in  or  upoii). 

itidreveiv  signifies — 

1st.  To  assent  to,  to  be  persuaded  of  the  truth. — Luke  i.  20; 
John  iii.  12. 

2d.  To  credit  the  truth  of  a  person. — John  v.  46. 

3d.  To  trust,  to  have  confidence  in. — Acts  xxvii.  25. 

The  phrases  iti6reveiv  els,  or  kiti,  are  always  used  to  express 
trust  and  confidence  terminating  upon  God,  or  upon  Christ  as 
Mediator.  We  are  often  said  to  believe  or  credit  Moses  or  other 
teachers  of  the  truth,  but  we  can  believe  in  or  on  God  or  Christ 
alone.  Upon  God,  John  xiv.  1;  Rom.  iv.  24;  1  Pet.  i.  21;  upon 
Christ. — Acts  xvi.  31 ;  John  iii.  15-18. 

3.  How  may  faith  be  defined? 

Faith  is  a  complex  act  of  the  soul,  involving  the  concurrent 
action  of  the  understanding  and  the  will,  and  modified  in  dif- 
ferent instances  of  its  exercise  by  the  nature  of  its  object,  and 
of  the  evidence  upon  which  it  rests.  The  most  general  defini- 
tion, embracing  all  its  modifications,  affirms  faith  to  be  "assent 
30 


4G6  FAITH. 

to  truth  upon  the  exhibition  of  the  appropriate  evidence.  But 
it  is  evident  that  its  nature  must  vary  with  the  nature  of  the 
truth  believed,  and  especially  with  the  nature  of  the  evidence 
upon  which  our  assent  is  founded.  Assent  to  a  speculative  or 
abstract  truth  is  a  speculative  act ;  assent  to  a  moral  truth  is  a 
moral  act;  assent  to  a  promise  made  to  ourselves  is  an  act  of 
trust.  Our  belief  that  the  earth  moves  round  its  axis  is  a  mere 
assent;  our  belief  in  the  excellence  of  virtue  is  of  the  nature  of 
a  moral  judgment ;  our  belief  in  a  promise  is  an  act  of  trust." 
So  likewise  with  respect  to  the  evidence  upon  which  our  faith 
is  founded.  "The  same  man  may  believe  the  same  truth  on 
different  grounds.  One  may  believe  the  Christian  system  sim- 
ply because  others  around  him  believe  it,  and  he  has  been 
brought  up  to  receive  it  without  question;  this  is  the  faith  of 
credulity.  Another  may  believe  it  on  the  ground  of  its  external 
evidence,  e.  g..  of  miracle,  prophecy,  history,  its  logical  consist- 
ency as  a  system,  or  its  plausibility  as  a  theory  in  accounting 
for  the  phenomena  of  creation  and  providence.  This  is  specu- 
lative faith.  Another  may  believe,  because  the  truths  of  the 
Bible  recommend  themselves  to  his  reason  and  conscience,  and 
accord  with  his  inward  experience.  This  faith  is  founded  on 
moral  evidence.  There  is  another  faith  founded  on  the  intrinsic 
excellence,  beauty,  and  suitableness  of  the  truth  from  a  sense 
and  love  of  its  moral  excellence.  This  is  spiritual  faith,  which 
is  the  gift  of  God."—"  Way  of  Life." 

Religious  faith  is  belief  of  (he  truth  on  the  testimony  of  God. 
It  includes,  (1)  Notitia,  knowledge;  (2)  Assensus,  assent;  (3)  Fi- 
ducia,  trust. 

4.  Hoxo  far  is  faith  an  act  of  the  understanding,  and  how  far 
an  act  of  the  iviU  ? 

The  one  indivisible  soul  knows  and  loves,  desires  and  de- 
cides, and  these  several  acts  of  the  soul  meet  on  the  same 
object.  The  soul  can  neither  love,  desire,  nor  choose  that 
which  it  does  not  know,  nor  can  it  know  an  object  as  true  or 
good  without  some  affection  of  will  towards  it.  Assent  to  a 
purely  speculative  truth  may  be  simply  an  act  of  understand- 
ing, but  belief  in  a  moral  truth,  in  testimony,  in  promises,  must 
be  a  complex  act,  embracing  both  the  understanding  and  the 
will.  The  understanding  apprehends  the  truth  to  be  believed, 
and  decides  upon  the  validity  of  the  evidence,  but  the  disposi- 
tion to  believe  testimony,  or  moral  evidence,  has  its  foundation 
in  the  will.  Actual  trust  in  a  promise  is  an  act  of  the  will*  and 
not  a  simple  judgment  as  to  its  trustworthiness.  There  is  an 
exact  relation  between  the  moral  judgment  and  the  affections, 
and  the  will,  as  the  seat  of  the  moral  affections,  determines 


RELATION   OF  FAITH  AND    KNOWLEDGE.  467 

the  moral  judgments.     Therefore,  as  a  man  is  responsible  for 
his  will,  he  is  responsible  for  his  faith. 

As  far  as  faith  includes  an  act  of  "  cognition  "  it  is,  of  course, 
purely  an  act  of  the  understanding.  But  as  far  as  it  includes 
"Assent"  and  "Trust,"  it  involves  also  the  spontaneous  and 
active  powers  of  the  soul,  that  is,  "  the  will,"  and  in  its  higher 
exercise  it  often  involves  deliberate  volition  itself. 

.    5.  What  is  tlie  difference  between  knowledge  and  faith  ? 

Generally,  knowledge  is  the  apprehension  of  an  object  as 
true,  and  faith  is  an  assent  to  its  truth.  It  is  obvious,  there- 
fore, that  in  this  general  sense  of  the  term  every  exercise  of 
faith  includes  the  knowledge  of  the  object  assented  to.  It 
is  impossible  to  distinguish  between  the  apprehension  of  the 
truthfulness  of  a  purely  speculative  truth  and  an  assent  to  it  as 
true.  In  such  a  case  faith  and  knowledge  appear  identical. 
But  while  the  apprehension  of  the  trustworthiness  of  a  promise 
is  knowledge,  the  actual  reliance  upon  it  is  faith.  The  appre- 
hension of  the  moral  truthfulness  of  an  object  is  knowledge, 
the  assent  to  it,  as  good  and  desirable,  is  faith. 

Sometimes  the  Scriptures  use  the  word  knowledge  as  equiv- 
alent to  faith. — John  x.  38;  1  John  ii.  3. 

Generally,  however,  the  Scriptures  restrict  the  term  knowl- 
edge to  the  apprehension  of  those  ideas  which  we  derive  through 
the  natural  sources  of  sensation  and  reason  and  human  testi- 
mony, while  the  term  faith  is  restricted  to  the  assent  to  those 
truths  which  rest  upon  the  dii'ect  testimony  of  God  alone,  object- 
ively revealed  in  the  Scriptures,  as  discerned  through  spiritual 
illumination.  Thus,  faith  is  the  "  evidence  of  things  not  seen." 
Heb.  xi.  1.  We  are  commanded  "to  walk  by  faith,  and  not 
by  sight." — 2  Cor.  v.  7.  Here  the  distinction  between  faith 
and  knowledge  has  reference  particularly  to  the  mode  of  know- 
ing. The  one  is  natural  and  discursive,  the  other  supernatural 
and  intuitive. 

6.  What  distinction  do  the  Romanists  malm  between  implicit  and 
explicit  faith  ? 

Romanists  and  Protestants  agree  that  it  is  not  essential  to 
faith  that  its  object  should  be  comprehended  by  the  understand- 
ing. But,  on  the  other  hand,  Protestants  affirm,  and  Roman- 
ists deny,  that  it  is  essential  that  the  object  believed  should  be 
apprehended  by  the  mind;  that  is,  that  knowledge  of  what  we 
believe  is  essential  to  faith.  The  Romanists,  therefore,  have 
invented  the  distinction  between  explicit  faith,  which  termi- 
nates upon  an  object  distinctly  apprehended  by  the  mind,  and 
implicit  faith,  which  a  man  exercises  in  the  truth  of  proposi* 


4G8  FAITH. 

lions  of  which  lie  knows  nothing.  They  hold  that  if  a  man 
exercises  explicit  faith  in  a  general  proposition,  he  therein  ex- 
ercises implicit  faith  in  every  thing  embraced  in  it,  Avhether 
he  knows  what  they  are  or  not.  If  a  man,  for  instance,  has 
explicit  faith  that  the  church  is  an  infallible  teacher,  he  thereby 
exercises  virtual  or  implicit  faith  in  every  doctrine  taught  by 
the  church,  although  he  may  be  ignorant  as  to  what  those  doc- 
trines are.  They  distinguish,  moreover,  between  those  truths 
which  it  is  necessary  to  regard  with  explicit  faith,  and  those 
which  may  be  held  implicitly.  They  commonly  teach  that  it 
is  necessary  for  the  people  to  hold  only  three  doctrines  expli- 
citly, 1st,  that  God  is;  2d,  that  he  is  a  rewarder,  including 
future  rewards  and  punishments ;  3d,  that  he  is  a  redeemer. 

"  This  doctrine  has  been  recently  revived  by  the  Puseyites, 
under  the  title  of  reserve.  The  distinguishing  truths  of  the 
gospel,  instead  of  being  clearly  presented,  should,  it  is  said, 
be  concealed  or  kept  in  reserve.  The  people  may  gaze  upon 
the  cross  as  the  symbol  of  redemption,  but  need  not  know 
Avhether  it  is  the  form,  or  the  material,  or  the  great  sacrifice 
once  enacted  on  it,  to  which  the  efficacy  is  due.  '  Religious 
light  is  intellectual  darkness,'  says  Dr.  Newman.  This  theory 
rests  upon  the  same  false  assumption  that  faith  can  exist  with- 
out knowledge." — Dr.  Hodge. 

7.  What  is  the  difference  heticeen  knowing  and  understanding 
a  thing,  ami  luowfar  is  knowledge  essential  to  faith  ? 

We  know  a  thing  when  we  simply  apprehend  it  as  true. 
We  understand  it  only  when  we  fully  comprehend  its  nature, 
and  the  perfect  consistency  of  all  its  properties  with  each  other 
and  with  the  entire  system  of  things  of  which  it  forms  a  part. 
We  know  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity  when  its  several  parts  are 
stated  to  us,  but  no  creature  can  ever  understand  it. 

That  knowledge,  or  simple  apprehension  of  the  object  be- 
lieved and  confided  in,  is  essential  to  faith,  is  evident  from  the 
nature  of  faith  itself.  It  is  that  state  of  mind  which  bears  the 
relation  of  assent  to  a  certain  object,  involving  that  action  of 
understanding  and  of  will  which  is  appropriate  to  that  object. 
If  a  man  loves,  fears,  or  believes,  he  must  love,  fear,  or  believe 
some  object,  for  it  is  evident  that  these  states  of  mind  can  exist 
only  in  relation  to  their  appropriate  objects.  If  a  real  object  is 
not  present  the  imagination  may  present  an  ideal  one,  but  that 
very  fiction  of  the  imagination  must  first  be  apprehended  as 
true  (or  known)  before  it  can  be  assented  to  as  true  (or  be- 
lieved). Just  as  it  is  impossible  for  a  man  to  enjoy  beauty  with- 
out perceiving  it  in  some  object  of  the  mind,  or  to  exercise 
complacent  love  in  a  virtuous  act  without  perceiving  it,  so  it 


KNOWLEDGE    ESSENTIAL    TO    FAITH  469 

is,  for  the  same  reason,  impossible  for  a  man  to  exercise  faith 
without  knowing  what  he  believes.  "  Implicit  faith"  is  a  per- 
fectly unmeaning  formula. 

8.  How  can  the/ad  that  knowledge  is  essential  to  faith  be  proved 
from  Scripture? 

1st.  From  the  etymology  of  the  word  srftfrtS,  from  itelBoo,  to 
persuade,  instruct  Faith  is  that  state  of  mind  which  is  the 
result  of  teaching.  2d.  From  the  use  of  the  word  knowledge 
in  Scripture  as  equivalent  to  faith. — John  x.  38 ;  1  John  ii.  3. 
3d.  From  what  the  Bible  teaches  as  to  the  source  of  faith.  It 
comes  by  teaching. — Kom.  x.  14-17.  4th.  The  Scriptures  de- 
clare that  the  regenerate  are  enlightened,  have  received  the 
unction,  and  know  all  things. — Acts  xxvi.  18;  1  Cor.  ii.  12-15; 
CoL  iii.  10.  5th.  The  means  of  salvation  consist  in  the  dissem- 
ination of  the  truth.  Christ  is  the  great  teacher.  Ministers 
are  teachers. — 1  Cor.  iv.  1;  1  Tim.  iii.  2;  iv.  13.  Christians  are 
begotten  by  the  truth,  sanctified  by  the  truth. — John  xvii.  19 ; 
James  i.  18.     Dr.  Hodge. 

9.  How  are  those  passages  to  be  explained  which  speak  of  knowl- 
edge as  distinguislied  from  faith? 

Although  every  act  of  faith  presupposes  an  act  of  knowl- 
edge, yet  both  the  faith  and  the  knowledge  vary  very  much, 
both  with  the  nature  of  the  object  known  and  believed,  and 
with  the  manner  in  which  the  knowledge  is  received,  and  with 
the  evidence  upon  which  the  faith  rests.  The  faith  Avhich  the 
Scriptures  distinguish  from  knowledge  is  the  strong  persuasion 
of  things  not  seen.  It  is  the  conviction  of  the  truth  of  things 
which  do  not  fall  within  the  compass  of  our  own  observation 
which  may  entirely  transcend  the  powers  of  our  understand- 
ing, and  which  rest  upon  the  simple  testimony  of  God.  This 
testimony  faith  relies  upon  in  spite  of  whatever  to  human  rea- 
son appears  inconsistent  or  impossible. 

Knowledge  though  essential  to  faith  may  be  distinguished 
from  it — 1st.  As  faith  includes  also  an  act  of  the  will  assent- 
ing, in  addition  to  the  act  of  the  understanding  apprehending. 
2d.  As  knowledge  derived  through  a  natural  is  distinguished 
from  knowledge  derived  through  a  divine  source.  3d.  As  pres- 
ent imperfect  apprehension  of  divine  things  (i.  e.,  faith)  differs 
from  that  perfect  knowledge  of  divine  things  we  shall  have  in 
heaven. — 1  Cor.  xiii.  12. 

10.  If  faith  necessarily  includes  knoidedge,  Jioio  can  men  be  com- 
manded to  believe? 

1st    No  man  is  ever  commanded  to  believe  that  which  is 


470  FAITH. 

not  revealed  to  him,  either  in  the  light  of  nature  or  by  the 
inspired  word.  2d.  No  man  is  ever  commanded  to  believe  a 
purely  speculative  truth.  The  truths  of  religion  rest  on  the 
testimony  of  God.  They  are  enforced  by  moral  evidence,  and 
faith  in  them  involves  a  moral  and  spiritual  knowledge  of  them, 
and  delight  in  them.  Moral  evidence  can  be  appreciated  only 
by  a  mind  possessed  of  moral  sensibility.  And  such  moral  in- 
sensibility as  leads  to  blindness  to  the  distinction  between  right 
and  wrong  is  itself  a  very  aggravated  state  of  depravity. 

The  Scriptures,  therefore,  luminous  with  their  own  self- 
evidencing  light,  present  the  truth  to  all  to  whom  they  come, 
and  demand  its  instant  reception  upon  the  testimony  of  God. 
If  that  evidence  is  not  felt  to  be  conclusive  by  any  one,  it  must 
be  because  of  the  sinful  blindness  of  his  mind.  Therefore  Christ 
says,  "ye  iviU  not  come  unto  me  that  ye  may  have  life."  And 
unbelief  is  uniformly  charged  to  the  "  evil  heart." 

11.  What  are  the  ultimate  grounds  of  that  assent  to  the  truth 
which  is  of  tJie  essence  of  faith  ? 

In  general,  the  ultimate  ground  upon  which  our  assent  to 
the  truth  of  any  object  of  knowledge  rests  is  the  veracity  of 
God.  The  testimony  of  our  senses,  the  integrity  of  our  con- 
sciences, the  intuitions  of  our  reasons,  all  rest  upon  his  vera- 
city as  Creator.  Practically  the  mind  is  moved  to  this  assent 
through  our  universal  and  instinctive  confidence  in  the  con- 
stitution of  our  own  natures. 

Religious  faith  rests,  1st,  upon  the  faithfulness  of  God  as 
pledged  in  his  supernatural  revelation,  John  iii.  33;  2d,  upon 
the  evidence  of  spiritual  illumination,  personal  experience  of 
the  power  of  the  truth,  and  the  witness  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the 
Sanctifier,  and  thus  "not  in  the  wisdom  of  man,  but  in  the 
power  of  God." — 1  Cor.  ii.  5-12. 

12.  What  are  the  two  Minds  of  evidence  by  which  we  know  that 
God  has  revealed  certain  truths  as  objects  of  faith  ? 

1st.  The  evidence  which  resides  in  the  truth  itself.  Moral, 
spiritual,  experimental,  rational. — John  vi.  63;  xiv.  17,  26;  Jer. 
xxiii.  29.  2d.  The  accrediting  evidence  of  the  presence  and 
power  of  God  accompanying  the  promulgation  of  the  truth, 
and  proving  that  it  is  from  him.  These  are  miracles,  provi- 
dential dispensations,  the  fulfilment  of  prophecy,  etc. — John  v. 
36 ;  Heb.  ii.  4. 

13.  How  can  it  be  shown  that  the  authority  of  the  Church  is  not 
a  ground  of  faith  ? 

See  above,  Chapter  V.,  Question  18. 


DISTINCTION  BETWEEN  HISTORICAL  AND  SA  VING  FAITH.    471 

14.  What  is  the  nature  of  historical  faith,  and  upon  wJaxt  evi- 
dence does  it  rest? 

That  mode  of  purely  rational  faith  called  historical  is  that 
apprehension  of  and  assent  to  the  truth  which  regards  it  in 
its  purely  rational  aspects  as  mere  facts  of  history,  or  as  mere 
parts  of  a  logical  system  of  opinion.  Its  appropriate  evidence 
is  purely  rational,  e.  g.,  the  solution  afforded  by  the  Scriptures 
of  the  facts  of  history  and  experience,  and  the  evidence  of  his- 
tory, prophecy,  miracles,  etc. 

15.  What  is  the  nature  of  temporary  faith,  and  of  the  evidence, 
upon  ivhieh  it  is  founded  ? 

Temporary  faith  is  that  state  of  mind  often  experienced  in 
this  world  by  impenitent  hearers  of  the  gospel,  induced  by  the 
moral  evidence  of  the  truth,  the  common  influences  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  the  power  of  religious  sympathy.  Sometimes  the 
excited  imagination  joyfully  appropriates  the  promises  of  the 
gospel.  —  Matt.  xiii.  20.  Sometimes,  like  Felix,  the  man  be- 
lieves and  trembles.  Oftentimes  it  is  at  first  impossible  to  dis- 
tinguish this  state  of  mind  from  genuine  saving  faith.  But 
not  springing  from  a  divine  work  of  recreation  it  has  no  root 
in  the  permanent  principles  of  the  heart.  It  is  always,  there- 
fore, 1st,  inefficient,  neither  purifying  the  heart  nor  overcom- 
ing the  world ;  2d,  temporary.    * 

16.  What  is  the  specific  evidence  upon  tvhich  saving  faith  is 
founded? 

This  is  the  light  let  into  the  soul  by  the  Holy  Ghost  in  his 
work  of  spiritual  illumination.  Thus  is  the  beauty,  and  excel- 
lence, and  the  suitableness  of  the  truth  to  the  practical  wants 
of  the  subject  apprehended.  With  this  the  witness  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  with  and  by  the  truth  co-operates. — 1  Cor.  ii.  4,  5 ;  Kom. 
viii.  16;  2  Cor.  iv.  6;  Eph.  ii.  8. 

17.  How  may  it  be  proved  from  Scripture  and  experience  that 
spiritual  illumination  is  the  ground  of  saving  faith  ? 

1st.  The  Scriptures,  wherever  they  come,  make  a  demand 
unconditional,  immediate,  and  universal  upon  the  most  intelli- 
gent and  the  most  ignorant  alike,  that  they  should  be  received 
and  believed,  and  unbelief  is  always  charged  as  sin,  and  not 
as  mere  ignorance  or  mental  incapacity.  rlhe  faith  which  they 
demand  must,  therefore,  be  a  moral  act,  and  must  depend  upon 
the  spiritual  congeniality  of  the  believer  with  the  truth. 

2d.  By  nature  men  are  spiritually  blind,  and  subjects  of  an 
"evil  heart  of  unbelief." — 2  Cor.  iii.  14,  iv.  4 


472  FAITH. 

3d.  Believers  are  said  to  be  enlightened,  and  to  discern  the 
things  of  the  Spirit. — Acts  xiii.  48 ;  2  Cor.  iv.  6 ;  Eph.  i.  17,  18 ; 
Uohnii.  20,  27;  v.  9,  10. 

4th.  Men  believe  because  they  are  taught  of  God. — John  vi. 
44,  45. 

5th.  Every  Christian  is  conscious  of  believing,  because  he 
sees  the  truth  believed  to  be  true,  lovely,  powerful,  and  satis- 
tying. 

6th.  This  is  proved  by  the  effects  of  faith.  "We  are  said  to 
live  by  faith,  to  be  sanctified  by  faith,  to  overcome  by  faith,  to 
be  saved  by  faith.  Blind  consent  to  authority,  or  rational  con- 
viction, produce  no  such  effects ;  if  the  effects  are  spiritual,  the 
source  must  be  also  spiritual." 

18.  What  are  the  different  opinions  as  to  the  relation  between 
faith  and  trust? 

In  consequence  of  their  doctrine  of  implicit  faith,  that  noth- 
ing is  required  beyond  blind  assent  to  the  teachings  of  the 
church,  Romanists  necessarily  deny  that  trust  enters  into  the 
essence  of  saving  faith. 

The  Sandemanians,  as  the  Campbellites,  holding  that  faith 
is  a  mere  affirmative  judgment  of  the  understanding  passed 
upon  the  truth  on  the  ground  of  evidence,  also  deny  that  trust 
is  an  element  of  saving  faith. 

Some  orthodox  theologians  have  held  that  trust  is  rather  to 
be  regarded  as  an  immediate  and  invariable  consequent  of  sav- 
ing faith,  than  an  element  of  that  faith  itself. 

Religious  faith,  resulting  from  spiritual  illumination,  respects 
the  entire  word  of  God  and  his  testimony,  and,  as  such,  is  a 
complex  state  of  mind,  varying  with  the  nature  of  the  partic- 
ular portion  of  revealed  truth  regarded  in  any  particular  act. 
Many  of  the  propositions  of  Scripture  are  not  the  proper  objects 
of  trust,  and  then  the  faith  which  embraces  them  is  only  a 
reverent  and  complacent  assent  to  them  as  true  and  good. 
But  the  specific  act  of  saving  faith  which  unites  to  Christ,  and 
is  the  commencement,  root,  and  organ  of  our  whole  spiritual 
life,  terminates  upon  Christ's  person  and  work  as  Mediator, 
as  presented  in  the  offers  and  promises  of  the  gospel.  This 
assuredly  includes  trust  in  its  very  essence,  and  this  is  called 
"  saving  faith  "  by  way  of  eminence,  since  it  is  the  faith  that 
eaves,  and  since  only  through  this  as  their  principle,  are  any 
other  more  general  exercises  of  saving  faith  possible. 

19.  How  may  the  fact  that  saving  faith  includes  trust  be  proved 
from  the  language  of  Scripture  ? 

The  uniform  and  single  condition  of  salvation  presented  in 


DOCTRINE    PROVED.  473 

the  Scriptures  is  expressed  in  the  words  believe  in  or  on  Christ, 
tiz  or  iiti  toy  xpi6r6v. — John  vii.  38 ;  Acts  ix.  42 ;  xvi.  31 ;  Gal. 
ii.  16.  To  believe  in  or  on  a  person  necessarily  implies  trust 
as  well  as  credit. 

The  same  is  abundantly  proved  by  the  usage  with  respect 
to  the  phrases  "by  faith  in  or  on  Christ." — 2  Tim.  iii.  15;  Acts 
xxvi.  18;  Gal.  iii.  26;  Heb.  xi.  1.  Faith  is  the  substance  of 
things  hoped  for,  but  the  foundation  of  hope  is  trust. 

20.  Sow  may  the  same  be  proved  from  those  expressions  tvhich 
are  used  in  Scripture  as  equivalent  to  the  phrase  "believing  in 
Christ"? 

"Receiving  Christ."— John  i.  12;  Col.  ii.  6.  "Looking  to 
Christ." — Is.  xlv.  22;  compare  Num.  xxi.  9  with  John  iii.  14,  15. 
"  Flying  to  Christ  for  refuge." — Heb.  vi.  18.  "  Coming  to 
Christ."— John  vi.  35;  Matt.  xi.  28.  "  Committing."— 2  Tim. 
i.  12.  All  these  illustrate  as  well  as  designate  the  act  of  saving 
faith,  and  all  equally  imply  trust  as  an  essential  element,  for 
we  can  "receive,"  or  "come  to,"  or  " look  to,"  Christ  only  in 
that  character  of  a  propitiation,  an  advocate  and  a  deliverer,  in 
which  he  offers  himself  to  us. 

21.  Hoio  may  the  same  be  proved  from  the  effects  which  the 
Scriptures  ascribe  to  faith  ? 

The  Scriptures  declare  that  by  faith  the  Christian  "  embraces 
the  promises,"  "is  persuaded  of  the  promises,"  "out  of  weak- 
ness is  made  strong,"  "waxes  valiant  in  fight,"  "confesses  him- 
self a  stranger  and  pilgrim  seeking  a  better  country."  As  faith 
in  a  threatening  necessarily  involves  fear,  so  faith  in  a  promise 
necessarily  involves  trust. 

Besides,  faith  rests  upon  the  trustworthiness  of  God,  and 
therefore  necessarily  involves  trust. — Heb.  x.  23,  and  the  whole 
of  the  11th  chapter. 

22.  How  may  it  be  slioion  that  this  view  of  faith  does  not  con- 
found faith  and  hope  ? 

To  our  doctrine  that  saving  faith  involves  trust,  the  Ro- 
manist objects  that  this  confounds  faith  and  hope,  which  the 
Scriptures  distinguish  (1  Cor.  xiii.  13),  since  hope  is  only  strong 
trust.  But  hope  is  not  merely  strong  trust.  Trust  rests  upon 
the  grounds  of  assurance,  while  hope  reaches  forward  to  the 
ob/'ect  of  which  assurance  is  given.  Trust  is  the  foundation  of 
hope.  Hope  is  the  fruit  of  trust.  The  more  confiding  the 
trust,  the  more  assured  the  hope. 


474  FAITH. 

23.  What  are  the  different  opinions  as  to  the  relation  between 
faith  and  love,  and  tlie  Romish  distinction  between  "fides  informis" 
and  "  fides  formata  "  ? 

1st.  The  Romanists,  in  order  to  maintain  their  doctrine  that 
faith  alone  is  not  saving,  distinguish  between  a  formed,  or  per- 
fect, and  an  unformed  faith.  They  acknowledge  that  faith  is 
distinct  from  love,  but  maintain  that  love  is  essential  to  render 
faith  meritorious  and  effectual  as  the  instrument  of  our  salva- 
tion. Fides  informis  is  mere  assent,  explicit  or  implicit,  to  the 
teachings  of  the  Church.  It  necessarily  precedes  "justificatio" 
as  its  condition.  Fides  formata  is  the  fruit  of  the  first  justifica- 
tion, and  the  condition  of  those  good  works  which  merit  further 
grace. 

2d.  Some  have  regarded  love  as  the  root  out  of  which  faith 
springs. 

3d.  The  true  view  is  that  love  is  the  immediate  and  neces- 
sary effect  of  faith.  Faith  includes  the  spiritual  apprehension 
of  the  beauty  and  excellence  of  the  truth,  and  an  act  of  the 
will  embracing  it  and  relying  upon  it.  Yet  these  graces  can 
not  be  analytically  separated,  since  they  mutually  involve  one 
another.  There  can  be  no  love  without  faith,  nor  any  faith 
without  love.  Faith  apprehends  the  loveliness  of  the  object, 
the  heart  spontaneously  loves  it.  Thus  "faith  works  by  love," 
since  these  affections  are  the  source  of  those  motives  that  con- 
trol the  will. 

The  Romish  doctrine  is  inconsistent  with  the  essential  prin- 
ciples of  the  gospel.  Faith  is  not  a  work,  nor  can  it  have, 
when  formed  or  unformed,  any  merit;  it  is  essentially  a  self- 
emptying  act,  which  saves  by  laying  hold  of  the  merits  of 
Christ.  It  leads  to  works,  and  proves  itself  by  its  fruits,  but  in 
its  relation  to  justification  it  is  in  its  very  nature-  a  strong  pro- 
test against  the  merits  of  all  human  works. — Gal.  iii.  10,  11; 
Eph.  ii.  8,  9. 

The  Protestant  doctrine  that  love  is  the  fruit  of  faith,  is 
established  by  what  the  Scriptures  declare  concerning  faith, 
that  it  "sanctifies,"  "works  by  love,"  "overcomes  the  world." 
Gal.  v.  6;  Acts  xxvi.  18;  1  John  v.  4.  This  is  accomplished 
thus — by  faith  we  are  united  to  Christ,  Eph.  iii.  17,  and  so 
become  partakers  of  his  Spirit,  1  John  iii.  24,  one  of  the  fruits 
of  the  Spirit  is  love,  Gal.  v.  22,  and  love  is  the  principle  of  all 
obedience. — Rom.  xiii.  10. 

24.  What  is  tJie  object  of  saving  faith  ? 

The  spiritual  illumination  of  the  understanding  and  renewal 
of  the  affections,  which  lays  the  foundation  for  the  soul's  acting 


MATTERS    OF  FAITH  AND    OPINION.  475 

taith  in  any  one  portion  of  the  testimony  of  God,  lays  the  foun* 
dation  for  its  acting  faith  in  all  that  testimony.  The  whole 
revealed  word  of  God,  then,  as  far  as  known  to  the  individual, 
to  the  exclusion  of  all  traditions,  doctrines  of  men,  and  pre- 
tended private  revelations,  is  the  object  of  saving  faith.  That 
particular  act  of  faith,  however,  which  unites  to  Christ,  called, 
by  way  of  distinction,  justifying  faith,  has  for  its  object  the 
person  and  work  of  Christ  as  Mediator. — John  vii.  38;  Acts 
xvi.  31. 

25.  What  is  meant  by  an  article  of  faith  as  distinguished  from 
a  matter  of  opinion  ? 

The  Romanists  hold  that  every  dogma  decided  by  the  church 
to  be  true,  whether  derived  from  Scripture  or  tradition,  is,  upon 
pain  of  damnation,  to  be  believed  by  every  Christian  as  an 
article  of  faith,  if  known  to  him  by  an  explicit,  if  not  known 
by  an  implicit  faith.  On  the  other  hand,  with  respect  to  all 
subjects  not  decided  by  the  church,  every  man  is  left  free  to 
believe  or  not  as  a  matter  of  opinion. 

26.  What  is  the  Anglican  or  Puseyite  criterion  for  distinguish- 
ing those  doctrines  which  must  be  known  and  believed  in  order  to 
salvation  ? 

They  agree  with  the  Romanists  (see  above,  Question  6)  that 
knowledge  is  not  essential  to  faith.  As  to  the  rule  of  faith, 
however,  they  differ.  The  Romanist  makes  that  rule  the  teach- 
ing of  the  Papal  Church.  The  Puseyites,  on  the  other  hand, 
make  it  the  uniform  testimony  of  tradition  running  in  the  line 
of  the  succession  of  apostolic  bishops. 

27.  What  is  the  common  Protestant  doctrine  as  to  fundamen- 
tals in  religion,  and  by  what  evidence  can  such  fundamentals  be 
ascertained  ? 

Every  doctrine  taught  in  the  Bible  is  the  object  of  an  en- 
lightened spiritual  faith.  No  revealed  principle,  however  com- 
paratively subordinate,  can  be  regarded  as  indifferent,  to  be 
adopted  or  rejected  at  will.  Every  man  is  bound  to  credit  the 
whole  testimony  of  God.  Yet  the  gospel  is  a  logically  con- 
sistent system  of  truth,  some  of  whose  principles  are  essential 
to  its  integrity,  while  others  are  essential  only  to  its  symmetry 
and  perfection ;  and  ignorance,  feebleness  of  logical  comprehen- 
sion, and  prejudice  may,  and  constantly  do,  lead  good  men  to 
apprehend  this  system  of  truth  imperfectly. 

A  fundamental  doctrine,  then,  is  either  one  which  every 
soul  must  apprehend  more  or  less  clearly  in  order  to  be  saved, 
or  one  which,  when  known,  is  so  clearly  involved  with  those 


476  FAITH. 

the  knowledge  and  belief  of  which  is  essential  to  salvation,  that 
the  one  can  not  be  rejected  while  the  other  is  really  believed. 

A  fundamental  doctrine  is  ascertained — 1st.  In  the  same 
way  that  the  essential  principles  of  any  other  system  are  deter- 
mined, by  their  bearing  upon  the  system  as  a  whole. 

2d.  Every  fundamental  doctrine  is  clearly  revealed. 

3d.  These  doctrines  are  in  Scripture  itself  declared  to  be 
essential. — John  iii.  18;  Acts  xvi.  31;  2  Cor.  v.  17;  Gal.  ii.  21; 
1  John  i.  8. 

28.  What  is  tJie  object  of"  fides  specialis,"  or  that  specific  act  of 
faith  whereby  ice  are  justified? 

The  person  and  work  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  Mediator. 

This  is  proved — 

1st.  The  Scriptures  expressly  declare  that  we  are  justified 
by  that  faith  of  which  Christ  is  the  object. — Kom.  iii.  22,  25; 
Gal.  ii.  16;  Phil.  iii.  9. 

2d.  "We  are  said  to  be  saved  by  faith  in  Christ. — John  iii. 
16,  36;  Acts  x.  43;  xvi.  31. 

3d.  Justifying  faith  is  designated  as  a  "looking  to  Christ," 
a  "coming  to  Christ,"  etc. — John  i.  12;  vi.  35,  37;  Isa.  xlv.  22. 

4th.  Rejection  of  Christ;  a  refusal  to  submit  to  the  right- 
eousness of  God  is  declared  to  be  the  ground  of  reprobation 
John  viii.  24;  iii.  18,  19. 

29.  How  is  the  Romish  doctrine  on  this  point  opposed  to  the 
Protestant  ? 

The  Romanists,  confounding  justification  and  sanctification, 
hold  that  faith  justifies  through  the  sanctifying  power  of  the 
truth.  As  all  revealed  truth  has  this  sanctifying  virtue,  it  fol- 
lows that  the  whole  revelation  of  God  as  ascertained  by  the 
decisions  of  the  church,  is  the  object  of  justifying  faith.  This 
is  refuted  by  all  we  have  established  from  Scripture  concerning 
justification,  sanctification,  and  faith. 

30.  Is  Christ  in  all  his  offices,  or  only  as  priest,  the  immediate 
object  of  justifying  faith  ? 

In  this  act  the  believer  appropriates  and  rests  upon  Christ 
as  Mediator,  which  includes  at  once  all  his  functions  as  such. 
These  may  be  analytically  distinguished,  but  in  fact  they  are 
always  inseparably  united  in  him.  When  he  acts  as  prophet 
he  teaches  as  king  and  priest.  When  he  reigns  he  sits  as 
prophet  and  priest  upon  his  throne.  Besides  this,  his  prophet- 
ical and  kingly  work  are  consciously  needed  by  the  awakened 
soul,  and  are  necessarily  apprehended  as  inseparable  from  hia 
priestly  work  in  the  one  act  of  faith. 


RELATION   OF  FAITH  AND    ASSURANCE.  477 

It  is  true,  however,  that  as  the  substitutionary  work  which 
Christ  accomplished  as  priest  is  the  meritorious  ground  of  our 
salvation,  so  his  priestly  character  is  made  the  more  prominent, 
both  in  the  teachings  of  Scripture  and  in  the  experience  of  his 
people. 

31.  How  far  is  'peace  of  conscience  and  peace  with  God  a  neces- 
sary consequence  of  faith  ? 

Peace  with  God  is  reconciliation  with  him.  Peace  of  con- 
science may  either  mean  consciousness  of  that  reconciliation, 
or  the  appeasement  of  our  own  consciences  which  condemn  us. 
Faith  in  every  instance  secures  our  peace  with  God,  since  it 
unites  us  to  Christ,  Rom.  v.  1 ;  and  in  the  proportion  in  which 
faith  in  the  merits  of  Christ  is  clear  and  constant  will  be  our 
consciousness  of  reconciliation  with  God,  and  the  satisfaction 
of  our  own  moral  sense  that  righteousness  is  fulfilled,  while  we 
are  forgiven.  Yet  as  faith  may  be  obscured  by  sin,  so  the  true 
believer  may  temporarily  fall  under  his  Father's  displeasure, 
and  lose  his  sense  of  forgiveness  and  his  moral  satisfaction  in 
the  perfection  of  the  atonement. 

32.  What  are  the  three  views  entertained  as  to  the  relation  be- 
tioeen faith  and  assurance  ? 

1st.  The  Reformers  generally  maintained  that  justifying  faith 
consisted  in  appropriating  the  promise  of  salvation  through 
Christ  made  in  the  gospel,  i.  e.,  in  regarding  God  as  propitious 
to  us  for  Christ's  sake.  Thus  the  very  act  of  faith  involves 
assurance. 

2d.  Some  have  held  that  assurance  in  this  life  is  unattain- 
able. The  Romanists,  holding  that  Christian  faith  is  chiefly 
implicit  assent  and  obedient  conformity  to  the  teachings  of  an 
infallible,  visible  society,  called  the  Church,  strenuously  denied 
that  private  individuals  have  any  Scriptural  authority  to  enter- 
tain an  assured  persuasion  that  they  are  specially  objects  of 
divine  favor.  They  were  accustomed  to  assert  that  it  is  neither 
•'obligatory,"  nor  "possible,"  nor  "desirable"  that  any  one  should 
attain  such  assurance  without  a  special  supernatural  revelation. 
See  Bellarmin,  etc.,  quoted  below. 

3d.  The  true  view  is  that  "  although  this  infallible  assurance 
does  not  belong  to  the  essence  of  faith,  but  that  a  true  believer 
may  wait  long  and  conflict  with  many  difficulties  before  he 
partake  of  it,  yet  being  enabled  by  the  Spirit  to  know  the 
things  which  are  freely  given  him  by  God,  he  may,  without 
extraordinary  revelation,  in  the  right  use  of  ordinary  means 
attain  thereunto.  And,  therefore,  it  is  the  duty  of  each  one  to 
give  diligence  to  make  his  calling  and  election  sure."     It  is 


478  FAITH. 

agreed  by  all  that  a  true  faith  can  not  admit  of  any  doubt  as 
to  its  object.  What  is  believed  is  assuredly  believed.  But  the 
object  of  saving  faith  is  Christ  and  his  work  as  Mediator  guar- 
anteed to  us  in  the  promises  of  the  gospel  on  the  condition  of 
faith.  True  faith  does,  therefore,  essentially  include  the  assur- 
ance— 1st.  That  Christ  is  able  to  save  us.  2d.  That  he  is  faith- 
ful and  will  save  us  if  we  believe.  It  is  meant  that  this  is  of  the 
essence  of  faith,  not  that  every  true  believer  always  enjoys  a 
state  of  mind  which  excludes  all  doubt  as  to  Christ's  power  or 
love;  because  the  spiritual  illumination  upon  which  faith  rests 
is  often  imperfect  in  degree  and  variable  in  exercise.  Faith 
may  be  weak,  or  it  may  be  limited  by  doubt,  or  it  may  alternate 
with  doubt.  Yet  all  such  doubt  is  of  sin,  and  is  alien  to  the 
essential  nature  of  faith.  But  the  condition,  if  ice  believe,  upon 
which  all  assurance  of  our  own  salvation  is  suspended,  is  a 
matter  not  of  revelation,  but  of  experience,  not  of  faith,  but  of 
consciousness. 

Theologians  have,  therefore,  made  a  distinction  between  the 
assurance  of  faith,  Heb.  x.  22,  and  the  assurance  of  hope,  Heb. 
vi.  11.  The  first  is  of  the  essence  of  saving  faith,  and  is  the 
assurance  that  Christ  is  all  that  he  professes  to  be,  and  will  do 
all  that  he  promises.  The  second  is  the  assurance  of  our  own 
personal  salvation,  is  a  fruit  of  faith,  and  one  of  the  higher 
attainments  of  the  Christian  life. 

33.  How  may  it  be  proved  that  assurance  of  our  own  personal 
salvation  is  not  essential  to  saving  faith  ? 

1st.  From  the  true  object  of  saving  faith  as  given  above. 
2d.  From  the  examples  given  in  the  Scriptures  of  eminent  saints 
who  doubted  with  regard  to  themselves. — 1  Cor.  ix.  27.  3d. 
from  the  exhortations  addressed  to  those  who  were  already 
believers  to  attain  to  assurance  as  a  degree  of  faith  beyond 
that  which  they  already  enjoyed.  4th.  From  the  experience 
of  God's  people  in  all  ages. 

34.  How  may  it  be  'proved  that  assurance  is  attainable  in  this 
life? 

1st.  This  is  directly  asserted. — Rom.  viii.  16;  2  Pet.  i.  10; 
1  John  ii.  3;  iii.  14;  v.  13.  2d.  Scriptural  examples  are  given 
of  its  attainment. — 2  Tim.  i.  12;  iv.  7,  8.  3d.  Many  eminent 
Christians  have  enjoyed  an  abiding  assurance,  of  the  genuine- 
ness of  which  their  holy  walk  and  conversation  was  an  indubi 
table  seal. 

35.  On  what  grounds  may  a  man  be  assured  of  his  salvation  ? 

"  It  is  an  infallible  assurance  of  faith,  founded,  1st,  upon  the 


FAITH  PRODUCES    GOOD    WORKS.  479 

divine  truth  of  the  promises  of  salvation;  2d,  the  inward  evi« 
dence  of  those  graces  unto  which  those  promises  are  made, 
and,  3d,  the  testimony  of  the  spirit  of  adoption,  Rom.  viii.  15, 
16,  witnessing  with  our  spirits  that  we  are  the  children  of  God. 
Which  Spirit,  Eph.  i.  13,  14;  2  Cor.  i.  21,  22,  is  the  earnest  of 
our  inheritance  whereby  we  are  sealed  to  the  day  of  redemp- 
tion."— "  Con.  of  Faith,"  Chap,  xviii. 

This  genuine  assurance  may  be  distinguished  from  that 
presumptuous  confidence  which  is  a  delusion  of  Satan,  chiefly 
by  these  marks.  True  assurance,  1st,  begets  unfeigned  hu- 
mility, 1  Cor.  xv.  10;  Gal.  vi.  14;  2d,  leads  to  ever-increasing 
diligence  in  practical  religion,  Ps.  li.  12,  13,  19;  3d,  to  candid 
Belt-examination,  and  a  desire  to  be  searched  and  corrected  by 
God,  Ps.  cxxxix.  23,  24 ;  4th,  to  constant  aspirations  after  nearer 
conformity,  and  more  intimate  communion  with  God. — 1  John 
iii.  2,  3. 

36.  How  may  it  be  shoivn  that  a  living  faith  necessarily  leads 
to  good  ivories? 

1st.  From  the  nature  of  faith.  It  is  the  spiritual  apprehen- 
sion and  the  voluntary  embrace  of  the  whole  truth  of  God, — the 
promises,  the  commands,  the  threatenings  of  the  Scripture, — 
viewed  as  true  and  as  good.  This  faith  occasions,  of  course, 
the  exercise  of  the  renewed  affections,  and  love  acted  out  is 
obedience.  Each  separate  truth  thus  apprehended  produces 
its  appropriate  effect  upon  the  heart,  and  consequently  upon 
the  life. 

2d.  The  testimony  of  Scripture. — Acts  xv.  9;  xxvi.  18;  Gal 
v.  6 ;  James  ii.  18 ;  1  John  v.  4. 

3d.  The  experience  of  the  universal  church. 

Authoritative  Statements. 

St.  Augustine. — "Quid  est  fides  nisi  credere  quod  non  vides  ? " 
Romish  Doctrine. — "  Cat.  Counc.  Trent,"  i.  1. — 1.  "We  here  speaA 
of  that  faith,  by  force  of  which  we  yield  our  entire  assent  to  whatsoever 
has  been  divinely  delivered,  ....  by  virtue  of  which  we  hold  that 
as  fixed  whatsoever  the  authority  of  our  holy  mother  the  church  teaches 
us  to  have  been  delivered  from  God. " 

Bellarmin,  "Justif.,"  1,  4. — "(Catholics)  teach  that  historic  faith, 
both  of  miracles  and  of  promises,  is  one  and  the  same  thing,  and  that 
this  one  thing  is  not  properly  a  knowledge  or  assurance,  but  a  certain 
and  most  fixed  assent,  on  the  authority  of  the  ultimate  verity.  .  .  . 
The  object  of  justifying  faith,  which  heretics  restrict  to  the  single  object 
of  special  (personal)  mercy,  Catholics  wish  to  extend  as  broadly  as  the 
word  of  God  extends;  nay,  they  contend  that  the  promise  of  special  mercy 
belongs  not  so  much  to  faith  as  to  presumption.  Hence  they  differ  (from 
Protestants)  as  to  the  faculty  and  power  of  mind  which  is  the  seat  of  faith. 
Inasmuch  as  they  (Protestants)  locate  faith  in  the  will,  they  define  it  to 


480  FAITH. 

be  assurance  (fiducia)  (or  trust),  and  so  confound  it  with  hope,  for  trust 
(or  assurance)  is  nothing  more  than  strong  hope,  as  holy  Thomas  teaches. 
Catholics  teach  that  faith  has  its  seat  in  the  intellect.  Lastly  (they  dif- 
fer) as  to  the  act  itself  of  the  intellect  (in  -which  faith  consists).  They 
(Protestants),  indeed,  define  faith  as  a  form  of  knowledge;  we  (Catholics) 
as  assent.  For  we  assent  to  God,  although  he  proposes  things  to  us  to 
be  believed  which  we  do  not  understand.  Ch.  7. — Li  him,  who  believes, 
there  are  two  things,  apprehension,  and  judgment  or  assent.  But  ap- 
prehension is  not  faith,  but  something  that  precedes  faith.  Besides 
apprehension  is  not  properly  called  knowledge.  For  it  may  happen 
that  an  unlearned  Catholic  may  only  very  confusedly  apprehend  the 
three  names  (of  the  Trinity),  and  nevertheless  may  truly  believe  in  them. 
But  judgment  or  assent  is  twofold,  the  one  follows  reason  and  the  evi- 
dence of  a  thing,  the  other  follows  the  authority  of  the  propounder;  the 
first  is  called  knowledge,  the  latter  faith.  Therefore  the  mysteries  of 
faith,  which  transcend  the  reason,  we  believe  but  do  not  understand,  so 
that  faith  is  distinguished  as  opposite  to  science,  and  is  better  defined 
as  ignorance  than  as  knowledge." 

"Cans.  Counc.  Trent,"  Sess.  6,  ch.  9. — "For  even  as  no  pious  person 
ought  to  doubt  of  the  mercy  of  God,  of  the  merits  of  Christ,  and  of  the 
virtue  and  efficacy  of  the  sacraments,  even  so  each  one,  when  he  regards 
himself  and  his  own  weakness  and  indisposition,  may  have  fear  and  ap- 
prehension touching  his  own  grace;  seeing  that  no  one  can  know  with  a 
certainty  of  faith,  which  can  not  be  subject  to  error,  that  he  has  obtained 
the  grace  of  God." 

Bellarmin,  "Justi/.,"  3,  3,  says,  "The  question  in  debate  between 
Bomanists  and  the  Beformed  was,  Whether  any  one  should  or  could, 
without  a  special  revelation,  be  certain  with  the  certainty  of  a  divine 
faith,  to  which  error  can  in  no  way  pertain,  that  his  sins  are  remitted  ?  " 

The  Protestant  Doctrine  of  Faith  and  Assurance. 

Calvin's  "Institutes,"  B.  3,  ch.  2,  \  7. — "We  shall  have  a  complete 
definition  of  faith,  if  we  say  that  it  is  a  steady  and  certain  knowledge  of 
the  divine  benevolence  towards  us,  which,  being  founded  on  the  truth 
of  the  gratuitous  promise  in  Christ,  is  both  revealed  to  our  minds  and 
confirmed  to  our  hearts  by  the  Holy  Spirit." 

"Heidelberg  Cat."  Ques.  21. — "What  is  true  faith  ?  It  is  not  a  mere 
knowledge,  by  which  I  firmly  assent  to  all  that  God  has  revealed  to  us 
in  his  word,  but  it  is  also  an  assured  confidence  kindled  in  my  heart  by 
the  Holy  Ghost  through  the  gospel,  whereby  I  acquiesce  in  God,  cer- 
tainly knowing,  that  not  to  others  only,  but  to  me  also,  remission  of 
sins,  eternal  righteousness  and  life,  is  given  gratuitously,  of  the  mercy 
of  God,  on  account  of  the  merit  of  Christ  alone. " 

"Apol.  Augb.  Con/.,"  p.  68. — "But  that  faith  which  justifies  is  not 
merely  a  knowledge  of  history;  but  it  is  assent  to  the  promise  of  God  in 
which  is  freely,  for  Christ's  sake,  offered  the  remission  of  sins  and  justi- 
fication. .  .  .  This  special  faith,  therefore,  whereby  each  one  beheves 
that  his  own  sins  are  remitted  to  him  for  Christ's  sake,  and  that  God  is 
reconciled  and  propitious  through  Christ,  (is  the  faith  that)  attains  remis- 
sion of  sins,  and  (that)  justifies." 

"West.  Con/.  Faith,"  ch.  18,  \  2. — "This  certainly  is  not  a  bare  con- 
jectural and  probable  persuasion,  grounded  upon  a  fallible  hope,  but  an 
infallible  assurance  of  faith,  founded  on  (a)  the  divine  truth  of  the  prom- 
ises, (b)  the  inward  evidence  of  those  graces  to  which  the  promises  are 
made,  and  (c)  the  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit ....  §  3. — This  infal- 
lible assurance  doth  not  so  belong  to  the  essence  of  faith,  but  that  a  true 


AUTHORITATIVE    STATEMENTS.  481 

believer  may  wait  long  and  conflict  with  many  difficulties  before  he  par- 
take thereof.  .  .  Yet  he  may,  without  extraordinary  revelation,  in 
the  right  use  of  ordinary  means  attain  thereto.  And,  therefore,  it  is  the 
duty  of  every  one  to  give  all  diligence  to  make  his  calling  and  election 
sure." 

Turretin,  L.  15,  Q.  10. — "The  diversity  (of  expression)  which  occurs 
between  the  orthodox  has  arisen  from  a  different  usage  of  the  word 
fiducia  (confidence),  which  may  be  taken  in  three  senses  :  1.  For  confi- 
dent assent,  or  persuasion,  which  arises  from  the  practical  judgment  of 
the  understanding,  concerning  the  truth  and  goodness  of  the  evangelical 
promises,  and  concerning  the  power,  willingness,  and  faithfulness  of  God 
promising.  In  which  sense  neitf/iovr}  (persuasion),  Gal.  v.  8,  is  used  syn- 
onymously with  it,  and  itX^pocpopia  (full  assurance)  is  attributed  to  faith, 
CoL  ii.  2,  and  Heb.  x.  22.  2.  For  the  act  of  fleeing  to,  and  of  receiving 
Christ,  by  which  the  believer,  the  truth  and  goodness  of  the  promises 
being  known,  flees  to  Christ,  receives  and  embraces  him,  and  reclines 
alone  on  his  merits.  3.  For  ccmfidence,  satisfaction,  and  tranquillity  of  mind, 
which  arise  from  the  refuge  of  the  mind  to  Christ  and  reception  of  him. 
For  he  who  firmly  reclines  on  Christ  and  embraces  him,  can  not  fail  to 
acquiesce  in  him  securely,  and  to  consider  himself  to  have  found  and  to 
have  received  that  which  he  sought.  In  the  first  and  second  sense  confi- 
dence {fiducia)  is  of  the  essence  of  faith,  is  lightly  said  by  theologians  to 
be  its  form;  because,  as  afterwards  proved  against  the  Papists,  it  is  a  con- 
fidential (trusting)  apprehension  of  Christ  and  of  all  the  benefits  offered 
in  the  word  of  the  gospel.  But  in  the  third  sense  it  is  by  others  rightly 
said  not  to  be  the/or7w,  but  the  fruit,  of  faith;  because  it  is  born  from  it, 
but  does  not  constitute  it 


CHAPTER   XXXI. 

UNION  OF  BELIEVERS  WITH  CHRIST. 

1.  To  whom  are  all  men  united  in  their  natural  estate? 

To  Adam.  Our  union  with  him  includes,  1st,  his  federal 
headship  under  the  covenant  of  works. — Rom.  v.  12-19.  2d.  His 
natural  headship,  as  per  force  of  ordinary  generation,  the 
source  of  our  nature,  and  of  its  moral  corruptions. — Gen.  v.  3 ; 
1  Cor.  xv.  49. 

But  the  law  upon  which  rested  the  covenant  of  works, 
whereby  we  were  held  in  union  with  Adam,  having  been  slain 
by  Christ,  "that  being  dead  wherein  we  were  held,"  we  were 
"married  to  another,"  that  is,  to  Christ. — Eom.  vii.  1-4. 

2.  What  is  the  general  nature  of  our  union  icith  Christ  ? 

It  is  a  single,  ineffable,  and  most  intimate  union,  presenting 
to  our  view  two  different  aspects,  and  giving  rise  to  two  dif- 
ferent classes  of  consequents. 

1st.  The  first  aspect  of  this  union  is  its  federal  and  repre- 
sentative character,  whereby  Christ,  as  the  second  Adam 
(1  Cor.  xv.  22),  assumes  in  the  covenant  of  grace  those  broken 
obligations  oi  the  covenant  of  works  which  the  first  Adam 
failed  to  discharge,  and  fulfils  them  all  in  behalf  of  all  his 
"  sheep,"  "they  whom  the  Father  has  given  him."  The  conse- 
quences which  arise  from  our  union  with  Christ  under  this 
aspect  of  it  are  such  as  the  imputation  of  our  sins  to  him,  and 
of  his  righteousness  to  us,  and  all  of  the  forensic  benefits  of 
justification  and  adoption,  etc. — See  Chaps.  XXXIII.,  XXXIV. 

2d.  The  second  aspect  of  this  union  is  its  spiritual  and  vital 
character,  the  nature  and  consequences  of  which  it  is  our 
business  to  discuss  under  the  present  head. 

3.  What  is  the  foundation  of  this  union? 

(1.)  The  eternal  purpose  of  the  triune  God,  expressed  in  the 


ITS   ESSENTIAL   NATURE.  483 

decree  of  election  (we  were  chosen  in  him  before  the  foun- 
dation of  the  world. — Eph.  i.  4),  providing  for  its  own  fulfil- 
ment in  the  covenant  of  grace  between  the  Father  as  God 
absolute,  and  the  Son  as  Mediator. — John  xvii.  2-6 ;  Gal.  ii.  20 ; 
(2)  in  the  incarnation  of  the  Son,  whereby  he  assumed  fellowship 
with  us  in  community  of  nature,  and  became  our  brother. — Heb. 
ii.  16,  17;  and  (3)  in  the  mission  and  official  work  of  the  Spirit 
of  Christ  (1  John  iv.  13),  through  the  powerful  operation  of 
whom  in  the  bodies  and  souls  of  his  people  the  last  Adam 
is  made  a  quickening  spirit  (1  Cor.  xv.  45\  and  they  are  all 
constituted  the  body  of  Christ  and  members  in  particular. 
1  Cor.  xil  27. 

4.  By  what  analogies  drawn  from  earthly  relations  is  this  union 
of  believers  with  Christ  illustrated  in  Scripture? 

The  technical  designation  of  this  union  in  theological  lan- 
guage is  "mystical,"  because  it  so  far  transcends  all  the  anal- 
ogies of  earthly  relationships,  in  the  intimacy  of  its  communion, 
in  the  transforming  power  of  its  influence,  and  in  the  excellence 
of  its  consequences.  Yet  Holy  Scripture  illustrates  different  as- 
pects of  this  fountain  of  graces  by  many  apt  though  partial 
analogies. 

As,  1st,  foundation  of  a  building  and  its  superstructure. — 1 
Pet.  ii.  4,  6.  2d.  Tree  and  its  branches. — John  xv.  5.  3d.  Head 
and  members  of  the  body. — Eph.  iv.  15,  16.  4th.  Husband  and 
wife. — Eph.  v.  31,  32;  Eev.  xix.  7-9.  5th.  Adam  and  his 
descendants,  in  both  their  federal  and  natural  relations. — Koni. 
v.  12-19;  1  Cor.  xv.  22,49. 

5.  What  is  the  essential  nature  of  this  union  ? 

On  the  one  hand,  this  union  does  not  involve  any  mysterious 
confusion  of  the  person  of  Christ  with  the  persons  of  his  people ; 
and,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  not  such  a  mere  association  of 
separate  persons  as  exists  in  human  societies.  But  it  is  a  union 
which,  1st,  determines  our  legal  status  on  the  same  basis  with 
his.  2d.  Which  revives  and  sustains,  by  the  influence  of  his 
indwelling  Spirit,  our  spiritual  life,  from  the  fountain  of  his 
life,  and  which  transforms  our  bodies  and  souls  into  the  like- 
ness of  his  glorified  humanity. 

It  is,  therefore — 

1st.  A  spiritual  union.  Its  actuating  source  and  bond  is 
the  Spirit  oi  the  head,  who  dwells  and  works  in  the  members. 
1  Cor.  vi.  17;  xii.  13;  1  John  iii.  24;  iv.  13. 

2d.  A  vital  union,  i.  e.,  our  spiritual  life  is  sustained  and 
determined  in  its  nature  and  movement  by  the  life  of  Christ, 
through  the  indwelling  of  his  Spirit. — John  xiv.  19 ;  Gal.  ii.  20. 


484  UNION  OF  BELIEVERS    WITH  CHRIST. 

3d.  It  embraces  our  entire  persons,  our  bodies  through  our 
spirits. — 1  Cor.  vi.  15,  19. 

4th.  It  is  a  legal  or  federal  union,  so  that  all  of  our  legal  or 
covenant  responsibilities  rest  upon  Christ,  and  all  of  his  legal 
or  covenant  merits  accrue  to  us. 

5th.  It  is  an  indissoluble  union. — John  x.  28;  Kom.  viii 
35,  37;  IThess.  iv.  14,  17. 

6th.  This  union  is  between  the  believer  and  the  person  of 
the  God-man  in  his  office  as  Mediator.  Its  immediate  organ  is 
the  Holy  Spirit,  who  dwells  in  us,  and  through  him  we  are 
virtually  united  to  and  commune  with  the  whole  Godhead,  since 
he  is  the  Spirit  of  the  Father  as  well  as  of  the  Son. — John 
xiv.  23;  xvii.  21,  23. 

6.  How  is  this  union  betiveen  CJirist  and  the  Christian  estab- 
lished ? 

It  was  established  in  the  purpose  and  decree  of  God,  and  in 
the  Covenant  of  the  Father  with  the  Son  from  eternity. — Eph. 
i.  4;  John  xvii.  2,  6.  Nevertheless,  the  elect,  as  to  personal 
character  and  present  relations,  before  their  effectual  calling  by 
the  Spirit,  are  born  and  continued  "by  nature  children  of  wrath 
even  as  others,"  and  "  strangers  to  the  covenants  of  promise." 
Eph.  ii.  3,  12.  In  God's  appointed  time,  with  each  individual 
of  his  chosen,  this  union  is  established  mutually — 1st.  By  the 
commencement  of  the  effectual  and  permanent  workings  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  within  them  (they  are  quickened  together  with 
Christ) ;  in  the  act  of  the  new  birth  opening  the  eyes  and  renew- 
ing the  will,  and  thus  laying  in  their  natures  the  foundation 
of  the  exercise  of  saving  faith.  2d.  Which  faith  is  the  second 
bond  by  which  this  mutual  union  is  established,  by  the  con- 
tinued actings  of  which  their  fellowship  with  Christ  is  sus- 
tained, and  its  blessed  consequences  developed. — Eph.  iii.  17. 
Thus  we  "come  to  him,"  "receive  him,"  "eat  of  his  flesh  and 
drink  of  his  blood,"  etc. 

7.  What  are  the  consequences  of  this  union  to  the  believer  ? 

1st.  They  have  a  community  with  him  in  his  covenant 
standing,  and  rights.  Forensically  they  are  rendered  "  com- 
plete in  him."  His  righteousness  and  his  Father  is  theirs. 
They  receive  the  adoption  in  him,  and  are  accepted  as  to  both 
their  persons  and  services  in  the  beloved.  They  are  sealed  by 
his  Holy  Spirit  of  promise;  in  him  obtain  an  inheritance;  sit 
with  him  on  his  throne  and  behold  his  glory. — Rom.  viii.  1; 
Col.  ii.  10;  Eph.  i.  6,  11,  13;  Phil.  iii.  8,  9. 

As  Mediator,  Jesus  is  "  the  Christ,"  the  anointed  one,  and  the 
believer  is  the  Christian,  or  receiver  of  "the  unction." — Acts 


THE    COMMUNION   OF   SAINTS.  485 

xi.  26;  1  John  ii.  20.  His  mediatorial  office  embraces  three 
principal  functions — (1.)  That  of  prophet,  and  in  fellowship  with 
him  the  believer  is  a  prophet.— John  xvi.  13;  1  John  ii.  27. 
(2.)  That  of  priest,  and  the  believer  also  is  a  priest  in  him. 
Lsa.  lxi.  6;  1  Pet.  ii.  5;  Rev.  xx.  6.  (3.)  That  of  king,  and  in 
him  the  believer  is  a  king. — 1  Pet.  ii.  9;  Rev.  hi.  21;  v.  10.  _ 

2d.  They  have  fellowship  with  him  in  the  transforming, 
assimilating  power  of  his  life,  making  them  like  him;  every 
grace  of  Jesus  reproducing  itself  in  them;  "of  his  fulness  we 
have  all  received,  and  grace  for  grace."  This  holds  true, 
(1)  with  regard  to  our  souls,  Rom.  viii.  9;  Phil.  ii.  5;  1  John 
hi.  2;  (2)  with  regard  to  our  bodies,  causing  them  to  be  now 
the  temples  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  1  Cor.  vi.  17,  19 ;  and  his  resur- 
rection to  be  the  cause  of  ours,  and  his  glorified  body  to  be  the 
type  of  ours.— Rom.  vi.  5;  1  Cor.  xv.  47,  49;  Phil.  iii.  21.  And 
thus  believers  are  made  to  bear  fruit  in  Christ,  both  in  their 
bodies  and  spirits,  which  are  his. — John  xv.  5;  2  Cor.  xii.  9; 
1  John  i.  6. 

3d.  This  leads  to  their  fellowship  with  Christ  in  their  expe- 
rience, in  their  labors,  sufferings,  temptations,  and  death. — Gal. 
vi.  17;  Phil.  iii.  10;  Heb.  xii.  3;  1  Pet.  iv.  13.  Thus  rendering 
sacred  and  glorious  even  our  earthly  life. 

4th.  Also  to  Christ's  rightful  fellowship  with  them  in  all 
they  possess. — Prov.  xix.  17 ;  Rom.  xiv.  8 ;  1  Cor.  vi.  19,  20. 

5th.  Also  to  the  consequence  that,  in  the  spiritual  reception 
of  the  holy  sacraments,  they  do  really  hold  fellowship  with 
him.  They  are  "baptized  into  Christ."— Gal.  iii.  27.  "The 
bread  which  we  break,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  body 
of  Christ;  the  cup  of  blessing  which  we  bless,  is  it  not  the 
communion  of  the  blood  of  Christ." — 1  Cor.  x.  16 ;  xi.  26 ;  John 
vi.  51-56. 

6th.  This  leads  also  to  the  fellowship  of  believers  with  one 
another  through  him,  that  is,  to  the  communion  of  saints. 

8.  What  is  the  nature  of  that  "  communion  of  saints "  which 
springs  from  tlve  union  of  each  saint  with  the  Lord? 

See  "  Confession  of  Faith,"  Chapter  xxvi.  Believers  being 
all  united  to  one  head  are,  of  course,  through  him  mutually 
related  in  the  same  community  of  spirit,  life,  status,  and  cove- 
nanted privileges  with  one  another. 

This  involves  upon  the  part  of  all  believers — 
1st.  Reciprocal  obligations  and  offices  according  to  the  spe- 
cial grace  vouchsafed  to  each.     Like  the  several  organs  of  the 
body  all  have  part  in  the  s.ime  general  life,  yet  each  has  his 
own  individual  difference  of  qualification,  and  consequently  of 


486  UNION  OF  BELIEVERS    WITH  CHRIST. 

duty;  "for  the  body  is  not  one  member  but  many." — 1  Cor.  xii 
4-21;  Eph.  iv.  11-13. 

2d.  They  have  fellowship  in  each  other's  gifts  and  comple- 
mentary graces,  each  contributing  his  special  loveliness  to  the 
beauty  of  the  whole. — Eph.  iv.  15,  16. 

3d.  These  reciprocal  duties  have  respect  to  the  bodies  and 
temporal  interests  of  the  brethren,  as  well  as  to  those  which 
concern  the  soul. — Gal.  ii.  10;  1  John  iii.  16-18. 

4th.  They  have  fellowship  in  faith  and  doctrine. — Acts  ii.  42 , 
Gal.  ii.  9. 

5th.  In  mutual  respect  and  subordination. — Rom.  xii.  10; 
Eph.  v.  21 ;  Heb.  xiii.  17. 

6th.  In  mutual  love  and  sympathy. — Rom.  xii.  10;  1  Cor. 
xii.  26. 

7th.  This  fellowship  exists  unbroken  between  believers  on 
earth  and  in  heaven.  There  is  one  "  whole  family  in  heaven 
and  on  earth." — Eph.  iii.  15. 

8th.  In  glory  this  communion  of  saints  shall  be  perfected, 
when  there  is  "one  fold  and  one  shepherd,"  when  all  saints 
shall  be  one  as  Father  and  Son  are  one. — John  x.  16;  xviL  22 


CHAPTER    XXXII. 

REPENTANCE,  AND  THE  ROMISH  DOCTRINE  OF  PENANCE. 

1.  What  are  the  words  wed  in  the  original  to  express  this  change 
of  mind  and  feeling  ? 

1st.  nera^E^EdBai,  from  fxiXonai,  to  care  for;  combined  with 
fiErd,  to  change  one's  care.  This  is  used  only  five  times  in  the 
New  Testament. 

2d.  ueravoeiv,  from  voioo,  to  perceive,  understand,  consider; 
combined  with  nerd,  to  change  ones  mind  or  purpose.  This  is 
the  verb  constantly  used  in  the  New  Testament  to  designate 
this  change. 

3d.  From  the  same  source  comes  the  noun  /lerdvoia,  repent- 
ance, change  of  mind  or  purpose.  In  the  New  Testament  usage 
of  these  words  the  idea  of  sorrow  and  contrition  is  included. 

2.  What  is  saving  repentance  ? 

See  "Con.  Faith,"  Chap,  xv.;  "Larger  Cat,"  Q.  76;  "Shorter 
Cat.,"  Q.  87. 

It  includes — 1st.  A  sense  of  personal  guilt,  pollution,  and 
helplessness.  2d.  An  apprehension  of  the  mercy  of  God  in 
Christ.  3d.  Grief  and  hatred  of  sin,  a  resolute  turning  from 
it  unto  God,  and  a  persistent  endeavor  after  a  new  life  of  holy 
obedience. 

3.  Prove  that  repentance  is  a  grace  or  gift  of  God. 

1st.  This  is  evident  from  the  nature  of  repentance  itself.  It 
includes,  (1)  sense  of  the  hatefulness  of  sin,  (2)  sense  of  the 
beauty  of  holiness,  (3)  apprehension  of  the  mercy  of  God  in 
Christ.  It,  therefore,  presupposes  faith,  which  is  God's  gift. 
Gal.  v.  22;  Eph.  ii.  8. 

2d.  The  Scriptures  expressly  affirm  it. — Zech.  xii.  10;  Acts 
v.  31;  xi.  18;  2  Tim.  ii.  25. 

4.  What  is  tlie  nature  of  that  sense  of  sin  which  is  an  essential 
element  of  repentance  ? 

That  spiritual  illumination  and  renewal  of  the  affections 


488        REPENTANCE— ROMISH  DOCTRINE  OF  PENANCE. 

which  is  effected  in  regeneration,  brings  the  believer  to  see  and 
appreciate  the  holiness  of  God  as  revealed  alike  in  the  law  and 
the  gospel,  Rom.  iii.  20;  Job  xlii.  6,  and  in  that  light  to  see 
and  feel  also  the  exceeding  sinfulness  of  all  sin,  and  tne  utter 
sinfulness  of  his  own  nature  just  as  it  is  in  truth.  This  sense 
of  sin,  thus  corresponding  to  the  facts  of  the  case,  includes, 
1st,  consciousness  of  guilt,  i.  e.,  exposure  to  righteous  punish 
ment,  as  opposed  to  the  justice  of  God. — Ps.  li.  4,  9.  2d.  Con 
sciousness  of  pollution  as  opposed  to  the  holiness  of  God,  Ps. 
li.  5,  7,  10;  and,  3d,  consciousness  of  helplessness. — Ps.  1L  11; 
cix.  22.     See  "  Way  of  Life." 

5.  What  are  the  fruits  and  evidences  of  this  sense  of  sin  ? 

A  sense  of  guilt,  especially  when  coupled  with  a  sense  of 
helplessness,  will  naturally  excite, apprehension  of  danger.  This 
painful  feeling  is  experienced  in  infinitely  various  degrees  and 
modifications,  as  determined  by  natural  temperament,  educa- 
tion, and  the  special  dealings  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  These  legal 
fears,  however,  are  common  both  to  false  and  to  true  repent- 
ance, and  possess  no  sanctifying  influence. 

A  sense  of  pollution  leads  to  shame  when  we  think  of  God, 
and  to  self-loathing  when  we  think  of  ourselves. 

Confession  of  sin,  both  in  private  to  God  and  before  men,  is 
a  natural  and  indispensable  mode  in  which  this  sense  of  sin 
will  give  genuine  expression  to  itself. — Ps.  xxxii.  5,  6;  Prov. 
xxviii.  13;  James  v.  16;  1  John  i.  9. 

The  only  indubitable  test  of  the  genuineness  of  such  a  sense 
of  sin,  however,  is  an  earnest  and  abiding  desire  and  endeavor 
to  be  delivered  from  it. 

6.  Shoiu  that  an  ajyprehension  of  the  mercy  of  God  in  Christ  is 
essential  to  repentance. 

1st.  The  awakened  conscience  echoes  God's  law,  and  can  be 
appeased  by  no  less  a  propitiation  than  that  demanded  by  di- 
vine justice  itself,  and  until  this  is  realized  in  a  believing  ap- 
plication to  Christ,  either  indifference  must  stupefy,  or  remorse 
must  torment  the  soul. 

2d.  Out  of  Christ  God  is  a  consuming  fire,  and  an  inextin- 
guishable dread  drives  the  soul  away. — Deut.  iv.  24;  Ileb.  xii.  29. 

3d.  A  sense  of  the  amazing  goodness  of  God  to  us  in  the 
gift  of  his  Son,  and  of  our  ungrateful  requital  of  it,  is  necessary 
to  excite  in  the  repentant  soul  the  proper  shame  and  sorrow 
for  sin  as  committed  against  God. — Ps.  li.  4. 

4th.  This  is  proved  by  the  teachings  and  examples  furnished 
in  Scripture. — Ps.  li.  1 ;  cxxx.  4. 


EVIDENCES    OF   GENUINE   REPENTANCE.  489 

7.  What  is  tlie  nature  of  that  "  turning  unto  God "  which  con- 
stitutes the  essence  of  genuine  repentance  ? 

It  is  a  voluntary  forsaking  of  sin  as  evil  and  hateful,  with 
sincere  sorrow,  humiliation,  and  confession;  and  a  returning 
unto  God,  because  he  has  a  right  to  us,  and  because  he  is  mer- 
ciful and  willing  to  forgive,  together  with  a  determination  to 
live,  by  the  help  of  his  grace,  in  obedience  to  his  commandments. 

8.  What  are  tJie  evidences  of  genuine  repentance  ? 

1st.  The  agreement  of  our  own  internal  experience  with  the 
teachings  of  the  word  of  God  on  this  subject.  This  is  to  be  de- 
termined by  the  prayerful  study  of  the  Scriptures  in  connection 
with  self-examination.  2d.  The  permanent  effects  realized  in 
the  life.  These  are  the  hatred  and  forsaking  of  secret  as  well 
as  of  open  sins,  the  choice  of  God's  service  as  both  right  and 
desirable,  public  confession,  and  entire  practical  consecration. 
"These  things  must  be  in  us  and  abound." — 2  Cor.  vii.  11. 

9.  What  are  the  relations  which  the  ideas  represented  by  the 
terms  "faith"  "repentance"  "regeneration"  and  "conversion"  mu- 
tually sustain  to  one  anotlver  ? 

Regeneration  is  the  ineffable  act  of  God  implanting  a  new 
nature.  '  The  term  conversion  is  used  generally  to  express  the 
first  exercises  of  that  new  nature  in  ceasing  from  the  old  life 
and  commencing  the  new.  Faith  designates  the  primary  act 
of  the  new  nature,  and  also  that  permanent  state  or  habit  of 
mind  which  continues  the  essential  condition  of  all  other  graces. 
It  is  the  spiritual  apprehension  of  the  truth  by  the  mind,  and 
the  loyal  embrace  of  the  truth  by  the  will,  without  which  there 
can  be  neither  love,  hope,  peace,  joy,  nor  repentance.  The  com- 
mon sense  attached  to  the  word  repentance  is  very  similar  to 
that  attached  to  the  word  conversion,  but  it  differs  from  it  as  to 
its  usage  in  two  particulars — 1st.  Conversion  is  the  more  gen- 
eral term,  and  is  used  to  include  the  first  exercises  of  faith,, as 
well  as  all  those  experiences  of  love,  of  holiness,  and  hatred  of 
sin,  etc.,  which  are  consequent  upon  it.  Repentance  is  more 
specific,  and  expresses  that  hatred  and  renunciation  of  sin,  and 
that  turning  unto  God,  which  accompanies  faith  as  its  conse- 
quent. 2d.  Conversion  is  generally  used  to  designate  only  the 
first  actings  of  the  new  nature  at  the  commencement  of  a  re- 
ligious life,  or  at  most  the  first  steps  of  a  return  to  God  after  a 
notable  backsliding. — Luke  xxii.  32.  While  repentance  is  ap- 
plied to  that  constant  bearing  of  the  cross  which  is  one  main 
characteristic  of  the  believer's  life  on  earth. — Ps.  xix.  12,  13; 
Lukeix.  23;  Gal.  vi.  14;  v.  24. 


490        REPENTANCE — ROMISH  DOCTRINE  OF  PENANCE. 

10.  What  doctrine  concerning  repentance  was  taught  by  many  of 
the  Reformers  ? 

Some  of  them  defined  repentance  as  consisting,  1st,  of  mor- 
tification, or  dying  unto  sin ;  and,  2d,  of  vivification,  or  living 
unto  God.  This  corresponds  to  our  view  of  sanctification.  The 
Lutherans  make  repentance  to  consist  in,  1st,  contrition,  or  sor- 
row for  sin;  and,  2d,  in  faith  in  the  gospel,  or  absolution. — 
"Augsburg  Conf.,"  Art  12.  This,  although  a  peculiar  phrase- 
ology, is  the  true  view. 

11.  What  is  the  Romish  doctrine  of  Penance  ? 

In  their  scheme  of  salvation  the  true  analogy  to  the  Prot- 
estant doctrine  of  justification  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  Eomish 
doctrine  of  justification  (so  called),  but  in  their  doctrine  of 
penance.  By  justification  Protestants  understand  a  change 
of  relation  to  the  divine  law,  from  condemnation  to  favor  with 
our  Judge  and  King,  on  the  ground  of  the  satisfaction  rendered 
by  Christ.  By  "justification  "  Romanists  mean  "  not  remission 
of  sin  merely,  but  also  the  sanctification  and  renewal  of  the 
inward  man,  through  the  voluntary  reception  of  the  grace  and 
of  the  gifts  whereby  man  of  unjust  becomes  just,  and  of  an 
enemy  a  friend."  "For  although  no  one  can  be  just,  but  he  to 
whom  the  merits  of  the  passion  of  Christ,  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  are  communicated,  yet  is  this  done  in  the  said  justifica- 
tion of  the  impious,  when  by  the  merit  of  that  same  most  holy 
passion,  the  charity  of  God  is  poured  forth  by  the  Holy  Spirit 
in  the  hearts  of  those  that  are  justified,  and  is  inherent  therein." 
"Cone.  Trent"  Sess.  6,  ch.  7.  This  is  effected  by  baptism,  and 
in  all  its  stages  presupposes  the  satisfaction  and  merit  of  Christ. 
His  satisfaction  atones  for  all  sins  committed  before  baptism, 
and  for  the  eternal  punishment  of  all  sins  of  the  baptized.  His 
merits  secure  prevenient  grace,  baptismal  regeneration,  and  are 
the  basis  on  which  the  gracious  obedience  and  the  temporal 
sufferings  of  the  believer  merit  forgiveness  of  sins  and  continu- 
ance, restoration,  and  increase  of  grace,  and  the  rewards  of 
heaven. 

Having  been  thus  justified  and  made  friends  of  God,  they 
advance  from  virtue  to  virtue,  and  are  renewed  from  day  to 
day  through  the  observance  of  the  commandments  of  God  and 
of  the  Church,  which  good  works  truly  merit  and  receive,  as  a 
just  reward,  increase  of  grace  and  more  and  more  perfect  justi- 
fication (sanctification).  The  Christian  man's  first  justification, 
effected  in  baptism,  was  for  Christ's  sake  without  co-operation 
of  his  own  merit,  though  by  co-operation  of  his  own  will  (if 
adult).    His  continued  and  increasing  justification  (sanctification) 


DOCTRINE    OF  PENANCE.  491 

is  for  Christ's  sake  through  and  in  proportion  to  his  own  merit, 
which  merit  increases  in  proportion  (a)  to  his  holiness,  (6)  to 
his  obedience  to  moral  and  ecclesiastical  rules. — "  Cone.  Trent," 
Sess.  6,  ch.  10,  and  can.  32. 

In  case  of  those  who  have  by  sin  fallen  from  the  received 
grace  of  "justification,"  the  grace  lost  is,  through  the  merits  of 
Christ,  restored  by  the  Sacrament  of  Penance,  provided  as  a 
second  plank,  after  the  shipwreck  of  grace  lost.  This  penance 
includes  (1)  sorrow  for  sin,  (2)  confession  of  those  sins,  (3)  sacer- 
dotal absolution,  (4)  satisfaction  rendered  (a)  in  this  world  by 
fasts,  alms,  prayers,  etc.,  and  (b)  after  death  by  the  fires  of 
purgatory. 

They  distinguish  penance — 1st.  As  a  virtue,  equivalent  to 
the  Protestant  doctrine  of  the  grace  of  repentance.  2d.  As  a 
sacrament.  Penance,  as  a  virtue,  is  internal,  or  a  change  of 
mind,  including  sorrow  for  sin  and  turning  unto  God.  External 
penance,  or  the  outward  expression  of  the  internal  state,  is  that 
which  constitutes  the  Sacrament  of  Penance.  The  matter  of  this 
sacrament  is  constituted  by  the  acts  of  the  penitent  in  the  way 
of  contrition,  of  confession,  and  of  satisfaction.  Contrition  is 
sorrow  and  detestation  of  past  sins,  with  a  purpose  of  sinning 
no  more.  Confession  is  self-accusation  to  a  priest  having  juris- 
diction and  the  power  of  the  keys.  Satisfaction  is  some  painful 
work  imposed  by  the  priest,  and  performed  by  the  penitent  to 
satisfy  justice  for  sins  committed.  These  effect  (a)  the  expia- 
tion of  the  guilt  of  past  sins,  and  (6)  the  discipline  and  in- 
crease of  the  spiritual  life  of  the  soul.  The  form  of  the  sac- 
rament is  the  absolution  pronounced  judicially,  and  not  merely 
declaratively,  by  the  priest.  They  hold  "  that  it  is  only  by  means 
of  this  sacrament  that  sins  committed  after  baptism  can  be  for- 
given."—"Cat.  Rom.,"  Part  II.,  Chap.  V.,  Qu.  12  and  13;  "Cone. 
Trent,"  Sess.  6,  chs.  14-16 ;  Sess.  14,  chs.  1-9 ;  Sess.  6,  can.  30. 

12.  How  may  it  be  proved  that  it  is  not  a  sacrament? 

1st.  It  was  not  instituted  by  Christ.  The  Scriptures  teach 
nothing  concerning  it.  2d.  It  is  an  essential  consequent  of  the 
false  theory  of  baptismal  regeneration.  3d.  It  does  not  either 
signify,  seal,  or  convey  the  benefits  of  Christ  and  the  new 
covenant. — See  below,  Chap.  XLL,  Questions  2-5. 

13.  What  is  their  doctrine  concerning  confession? 

Confession  is  self-accusation  to  a  priest  having  jurisdiction 
and  the  power  of  the  keys.  All  sins  must  be  confessed  without 
reserve,  and  in  all  their  details  and  qualifying  circumstances. 
If  any  mortal  sin  is  not  confessed,  it  is  not  pardoned,  and  if 


i92       REPENTANCE— ROMISH  DOCTRINE  OF  PENANCE. 

the  omission  is  wilful,  it  is  sacrilege,  and  greater  guilt  is  in 
curred.— "  Cat.  Rom.,"  Pt.  II.,  Chap.  V.,  Qu.  33,  34  and  42. 

14.  What  are  the  Protestant  arguments  against  auricular  con- 
fession ? 

1st.  It  has  no  warrant  in  Scripture.  The  command  is  to 
"confess  one  to  another." 

2d.  It  perverts  the  whole  plan  of  salvation,  by  making 
necessary  the  mediation  of  the  priest  between  the  Christian 
and  Christ,  which  has  been  refuted  above,  Chap.  XXIV.,  Ques- 
tions 8  and  21. 

3d.  We  are  commanded  to  confess  to  God  immediately. 
Matt.  xi.  28 ;  1  Tim.  ii.  5 ;  1  John  i.  9. 

4th.  The  practical  results  of  this  system  have  always  been 
evil,  and  this  gross  invasion  of  all  the  sacred  rights  of  person- 
ality is  revolting  to  every  refined  soul. 

15.  What  is  the  nature  of  that  absolution  ivhich  the  Romish 
priests  claim  the  poioer  to  grant  ? 

It  absolves  judicially,  not  merely  declaratively,  from  all  the 
penal  consequences  of  the  sins  confessed  by  the  authority  of 
Jesus  Christ.  They  appeal  to  Matt.  xvi.  19;  xviii.  18;  John 
xx.  22,  23.  "Cat.  Rom.,"  Part  II.,  Chap.  V.,  Qu.  13  and  17; 
"Council  of  Trent,"  Sess.  14,  De  Poenitentia,  can.  9. 

16.  What  are  the  arguments  against  tJie  possession,  upon  tJie 
part  of  the  Christian  ministry,  of  such  a  poioer  to  absolve  ? 

1st.  The  Christian  ministry  is  not  a  priesthood. — See  above, 
Chap.  XXIV.,  Question  21. 

2d.  But  even  if  it  were,  the  conclusion  which  the  Papists 
draw  from  it  would  not  follow.  Absolution  is  a  sovereign,  not 
a  priestly  act.  This  is  plain,  from  the  definition  of  the  priest- 
hood given  (Heb.  v.  1-6),  from  the  Levitical  practice,  and  from 
the  very  nature  of  the  act  itself. 

3d.  The  grant  of  the  power  of  the  keys,  whatever  it  was, 
was  not  made  to  the  ministry  as  such,  for  in  Matt,  xviii.  1-18, 
Christ  was  addressing  the  body  of  the  disciples,  and  the  prim- 
itive ministers  never  either  claimed  or  exercised  the  power  in 
question. 

4th.  The  power  of  absolute  forgiveness  is  incommunicable 
in  itself,  and  was  not  granted  as  a  matter  of  fact;  the  words  in 
question  will  not  bear  that  sense,  and  were  not  so  understood. 
The  practice  of  the  apostles  shows  that  their  understanding  of 
the  words  was  that  they  conveyed  merely  the  power  of  declar- 
ing the  conditions  on  winch  God  would  pardon  sin,  and  in 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF  INDULGENCES.  493 

accordance  with  that  declaration,  of  admitting  or  excluding 
men  from  sealing  ordinances. 

5th.  This  one  false  principle  makes  Christ  of  none  effect, 
and  perverts  the  whole  gospel. — "  Bib.  Rep.,"  Jan.,  1845. 

17.  What  is  the  Romish  doctrine  concerning  satisfaction  as  a 
part  of  penance? 

By  satisfaction  is  meant  such  works  as  are  enjoined  by  the 
priest  upon  confession,  which  being  set  over  against  the  sins 
confessed,  for  which  contrition  has  been  professed,  are  supposed 
to  constitute  a  compensation  for  the  breach  of  God's  law,  and 
in  consideration  of  which  the  sins  are  forgiven. — '*  Cat.  Rom.," 
Fart  II.,  Chap.  V.,  Qu.  52  and  53.  "Council  of  Trent,"  Sess. 
XIV.,  "  De  Poenitentia,"  Chs.  I-IX. 

18.  What  are  the  objections  to  that  doctrine  ? 

1st.  It  is  not  supported  by  any  Scriptural  authority.  2d.  It 
does  dishonor  to  the  one  perfect  satisfaction  offered  by  our 
High  Priest  once  for  all. — Heb.  x.  10-14.  3d.  The  distinc- 
tion they  make  between  the  temporal  and  eternal  punishments 
of  sin  is  unauthorized.  The  penalty  of  sin  is  the  judicial  wrath 
of  God — while  that  lasts  there  is  no  peace.  When  that  is  pro- 
pitiated there  is  no  more  condemnation  (Rom.  viii.  1).  The 
temporal  sufferings  of  believers  in  Christ  are  chastisements,  not 
punishments,  nor  satisfactions.  4th.  The  pretended  "  satisfac- 
tions" are  either  commanded  or  not.  If  commanded,  they  are 
simple  duties.  Their  performance  can  have  no  merit.  The 
performance  of  one  duty  can  never  "satisfy"  for  the  neglect 
or  violation  of  another.  If  not  commanded,  they  are  a  form 
of  will-worship  which  God  abhors. — Col.  ii.  20-23. 

19.  What  is  the  Papal  doctrine  of  Indulgences  ? 

The  Papal  doctrine  of  Indulgences — 1st.  Rests  upon  the  same 
principles  with  their  doctrine  of  Penance.  (1.)  The  distinction 
between  the  eternal  and  the  temporal  penalties  demanded  for 
the  satisfactions  for  sins.  (2.)  The  superabundant  merit  ac- 
quired by  and  belonging  to  the  Head  of  the  Church  and  his 
members  (Christ,  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  the  saints),  which  con- 
stitute a  Treasury  of  Merit,  disposable  at  the  discretion  of  com- 
petent authority  to  the  relief  ot  any  repentant  believer  not  in 
mortal  sin.  (3.)  The  dispensing  power  of  the  church,  whereby 
a  church  officer  possessing  competent  jurisdiction  has  authority 
to  dispense  in  behalf  of  God  and  of  the  church  any  or  all  tem- 
poral satisfactions  due  from  the  penitent,  either  on  earth  or  in 
purgatory,  not  as  yet  discharged  t>y  him  personally. 

2d.  These  indulgences  are  to  be  granted  for  "reasonable 


494       REPENTANCE— ROMISH  DOCTRINE  OF  PENANCE. 

causes,"  i.  e.,  "the  cause  must  be  pious,  that  is,  not  a  work 
which  is  merely  temporal,  or  vain,  or  in  no  respect  appertain- 
ing to  the  divine  glory,  but  any  work  whatsoever  which  tends 
to  the  honor  of  God,  or  the  service  of  the  church."  They  "  do 
not  depend  for  their  efficacy  on  consideration  of  the  work  en- 
joined, but  on  the  infinite  treasure  of  the  merits  of  Christ  and 
the  saints."  These  "causes"  are  payments  of  money  for  pious 
purposes,  special  prayers,  visit  to  certain  shrines,  etc.,  etc. 

3d.  Indulgences  are  of  various  kinds.  (1.)  General  for  the 
whole  church,  granted  only  by  the  pope  himself,  to  all  the  faithful 
throughout  the  world;  or  particular,  granted  by  due  authority 
to  certain  persons.  (2.)  They  may  be  plenary,  granting  remis- 
sion from  all  temporal  punishments  in  this  world  and  in  purga- 
tory ;  or  partial,  remitting  only  some  part  of  the  penalty  due. 
(3.)  They  may  be  temporary,  for  a  specified  number  of  days 
or  months.  (4.)  Perpetual,  without  any  limitation  of  time.  (5.) 
Local,  attached  to  certain  churches  or  other  places.  (6.)  Beat, 
attached  to  certain  movable  things  as  rosaries,  medals,  etc. 
(7.)  Personal,  granted  to  particular  persons,  or  communities. — 
See  M'Clintock  and  Strong's  "  Encyclopaedia,"  and  below,  the 
"  Counc.  of  Trent,"  etc. 

AUTHORITATIVE     STATEMENTS. 

"Counc.  Trent,"  Sess.  14,  ch.  1. — "But  the  Lord  then  principally  in- 
stituted the  Sacrament  of  Penance,  when  being  raised  from  the  dead,  he 
breathed  upon  his  disciples  saying,  '  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost,  whose 
sins  ye  shall  forgive,  they  are  forgiven  them,  and  whose  sins  ye  retain, 
they  are  retained. '  By  which  action  so  signal,  and  words  so  clear,  the 
consent  of  all  the  Fathers  has  ever  understood,  that  the  power  of  for- 
giving and  retaining  sins  was  communicated  to  the  apostles  and  their 
lawful  successors,  for  the  reconciling  of  the  faithful  who  have  fallen 
after  baptism." 

lb.,  ch.  3. — "The  holy  synod  doth  furthermore  teach,  (1)  that  the 
form  of  the  Sacrament  of  Penance,  wherein  its  force  principally  con- 
sists, is  placed  in  those  words  of  the  minister,  'I  absolve  thee,  etc' 
.  .  .  .  But  (2)  the  acts  of  the  penitent  himself,  to  wit,  contrition, 
confession,  and  satisfaction,  are  as  it  were  the  matter  of  this  sacrament, 
which  acts,  inasmuch  as  they  are,  by  God's  institution,  required  in  the 
penitent  for  the  integrity  of  the  sacrament,  and  for  the  full  and  perfect 
remission  of  sins,  are  for  this  reason  called  the  parts  of  penance.  But 
(3)  the  thing  signified  indeed,  and  the  effect  of  this  sacrament,  as  far  as  re- 
gards its  force  and  efficacy,  is  reconciliation  with  God." 

lb.,  ch.  4. — "Contrition,  which  holds  the  first  place  amongst  the  afore- 
said acts  of  the  penitent,  is  a  sorrow  of  mind,  and  a  detestation  for  sin 
committed,  with  the  purpose  of  not  sinning  for  the  future. " 

lb.,  ch.  5. — "All  mortal  sins  of  which,  after  a  diligent  examination 
of  themselves,  they  are  conscious,  must  needs  be  by  penitents  enume- 
rated in  confession,  even  though  those  sins  be  most  hidden,  and  com- 
mitted only  against  the  two  last  precepts  of  the  decalogue.  .  .  Venial 
sins,  whereby  we  are  not  excluded  from  the  grace  of  God,  and  into  which 
we  fall  more  frequently,  although  they  be  rightly  and  profitably  and  with- 


AUTHORITATIVE    STATEMENTS.  495 

out  presumption  declared  in  confession,  yet  they  may  be  omitted  without 

guilt,  and  be  expiated  by  many  other  remedies Other  sina 

(mortal)  which  do  not  occur  to  him  (the  penitent)  after  diligent  thought, 
are  understood  to  be  included  as  a  whole  in  that  same  confession ;  for 
which  sins  we  confidently  say  with  the  prophet.  •  From  my  secret  sins 
cleanse  me,  O  Lord.'" 

lb.,  ch.  6. — "It  also  teaches,  that  even  priests,  who  are  in  mortal  sin, 
exercise  through  the  virtue  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  God  has  bestowed 
in  ordination,  the  office  of  forgiving  sins.  .  .  .  But  although  the 
absolution  of  the  priest  is  the  dispensation  of  another's  bounty,  yet  it 
is  not  a  bare  ministry  only,  or  declarative  act,  but  of  the  nature  of  a 
judicial  act,  whereby  sentence  is  pronounced  by  the  priest  as  by  a  judge. 
.  .  Neither  would  faith  without  penance  bestow  any  remission  of  sins; 
nor  would  he  be  otherwise  than  most  careless  of  his  own  salvation,  who 
knowing  that  a  priest  but  absolved  him  in  jest,  should  not  carefully  seek 
for  another  who  would  act  in  earnest. " 

lb.,  ch.  8. — "Finally,  as  regards  Satisfaction,  which  as  it  is,  of  all  the 
parts  of  Penance,  that  which  has  been  at  all  times  recommended  to 
the  Christian  people  by  our  Fathers.  Ch.  9. — We  are  able  through  Jesus 
Christ  to  make  satisfaction  to  God  the  Father,  not  only  by  pains  volun- 
tarily undertaken  by  ourselves  for  the  punishment  of  sin,  or  by  those 
imposed  at  the  discretion  of  the  priest  according  to  the  measure  of  our 
delinquency, — but  also,  which  is  a  very  great  proof  of  love,  by  the  tem- 
poral scourges  inflicted  of  God  and  borne  patiently  by  us. " 

"  Gounc.  Trent,"  Sess.  6,  Can.  29. — "If  any  one  saith,  that  he,  who 
has  fallen  after  baptism,  is  not  able  by  the  grace  of  God  to  rise  again ; 
or  that  he  is  able  indeed  to  recover  the  justice  which  he  has  lost,  but  by 

faith  alone  without  the  sacrament  of  penance Let  him 

be  accursed.  Can.  30. — If  any  one  saith  that  after  the  grace  of  Justifi- 
cation (sanctification)  has  been  received,  to  every  penitent  sinner  the 
guilt  is  remitted,  and  the  debt  of  eternal  punishment  is  blotted  out  in 
such  wise,  that  there  remains  not  any  debt  of  temporal  punishment  to 
be  discharged  either  in  this  world,  or  in  the  next  in  Purgatory,  before 
entrance  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven  can  be  opened  (to  him);  Let  him  be 
accursed. " 

Indulgences. — "Cone.  Trent,"  Sess.  25,  "De  Indulgentiis." 

Pope  Leo  X.,  "Bull  De  Indulgentiis"  (1518). — "That  no  one  in  future 
may  allege  ignorance  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Eoman  Church  respecting 
indulgences  and  their  efficacy  .  .  .  the  Eoman  pontiff,  vicar  of  Christ 
on  earth,  can,  for  reasonable  causes,  by  the  powers  of  the  keys,  grant  to 
the  faithful,  whether  in  this  fife  or  in  Purgatory,  indulgences,  out  of  the 
superabundance  of  the  merits  of  Christ,  and  of  the  saints  (expressly 
called  a  treasure) ;  and  that  those  who  have  truly  obtained  those  indul- 
gences are  released  from  so  much  of  the  temporal  punishment  due  for 
their  actual  sins  to  the  divine  justice  as  is  equivalent  to  the  indulgence 
granted  and  obtained." 


CHAPTER   XXXIII. 

JUSTIFICATION. 

L  What  is  the  sense  in  which  tlie  word  Sinaio?,  just,  is  used  in 
the  Neiv  Testament? 

Its  fundamental  idea  is  that  of  perfect  conformity  to  all  the 
requirements  of  the  moral  law. 

1st.  Spoken  of  things  or  actions. — Matt.  xx.  4 ;  Col.  iv.  1. 

2d.  Spoken  of  persons  (1.)  as  personally  holy,  conformed  to 
the  law  in  character. — Matt.  v.  45;  ix.  13.  (2.)  In  respect  to 
their  possessing  eminently  some  one  quality  demanded  by  the 
law. — Matt.  i.  19;  Luke  xxiii.  50.  (3.)  As  forensically  just,  i.  e., 
as  conformed  to  the  requirements  of  the  law  as  the  condition 
of  the  covenant  of  life. — Rom.  i.  17.  (4.)  Spoken  of  God  in 
respect  to  his  possession  of  the  attribute  of  distributive  justice 
in  administering  the  provisions  of  the  law  and  the  covenants. 
Rom.  iii.  26;  1  John  i.  9.  (5.)  Spoken  of  Christ  in  respect  to 
his  character  as  the  only  perfect  man,  and  to  his  representative 

Eosition  in  satisfying  all  the  demands  of  the  law  in  behalf  of 
is  people. — Acts  iii.  14 ;  vii.  52 ;  xxii.  14. 

2.  What  is  the  usage  of  tlve  verb  Swaiooo,  to  justify,  in  the,  New 
Testament  ? 

It  means  to  declare  a  person  to  be  just. 

1st.  Personally  conformed  to  the  law  as  to  moral  character. 
Luke  vii.  29 ;  Rom.  iii.  4. 

2d.  Forensically,  that  is,  that  the  demands  of  the  law  as  a 
condition  of  life  are  fully  satisfied  with  regard  to  him. — Acts 
xiii.  39;  Rom.  v.  1,  9;  viii.  30-33;  1  Cor.  vi.  11;  Gal.  ii.  16: 
iii.  11. 

3.  How  can  it  be  proved  that  the  word  dtxaiooa  is  used  in  \ 
forensic  sense  when  the  Scriptures  use  it  with  reference  to  tlie 
justif  cation  of  sinners  under  tlie  gospel  ? 

1st.  In  many  instances  it  can  bear  no  other  sense.  The 
ungodly  are  said  to  be  justified  without  the  deeds  of  the  law, 


NEW    TESTAMENT    USAGE.  497 

by  the  blood  of  Christ,  by  faith,  freely,  and  of  grace,  through 
the  agency  of  an  advocate,  by  means  of  a  satisfaction  and  of 
imputed  righteousness. — Rom.  iii.  20-28;  iv.  5-7;  v.  1;  Gal. 
ii.  16;  iii.  11;  v.  4;  1  John  ii.  2. 

2d.  It  is  used  as  the  contrary  of  condemnation. — Rom. 
viii.  33,  34. 

3d.  The  same  idea  is  conveyed  in  many  equivalent  and 
interchangeable  expressions. — John  iii.  18;  v.  24;  Rom.  iv.  6,  7; 
2  Cor.  v.  19. 

4th.  If  it  does  not  bear  this  meaning,  there  is  no  distinction 
between  justification  and  sanctification. — Turretin,  L.  XVI., 
Quaistio  1. 

4.  What  is  the  usage  of  the  term  Stxaiodvvr/,  righteousness,  and 
of  the  phrase  "  righteousness  of  God"  in  the  New  Testament  ? 

The  term  "just"  is  concrete,  designating  the  person  who  is 
perfectly  conformed  to  the  law,  or  in  respect  to  whom  all  the 
demands  of  the  law  are  completely  satisfied.  The  term  "right- 
eousness," on  the  other  hand,  is  abstract,  designating  that  quality 
or  that  obedience  or  suffering  which  satisfies  the  demands  of 
the  law,  and  which  constitutes  the  ground  upon  which  justifi- 
cation proceeds. 

Consequently,  it  sometimes  signifies,  1st,  holiness  of  charac- 
ter, Matt.  v.  6;  Rom.  vi.  13;  2d,  that  perfect  conformity  to  the 
law  in  person  and  life  which  was  the  original  ground  of  justifi- 
cation under  the  covenant  of  works,  Rom.  x.  3,  5 ;  Phil.  iii.  9 ; 
Titus  iii.  5 ;  3d,  the  vicarious  obedience  and  sufferings  of  Christ 
our  substitute,  which  he  wrought  in  our  behalf,  and  which, 
when  imputed  to  us,  becomes  our  righteousness,  or  the  ground 
of  our  justification,  Rom.  iv.  6;  x.  4;  1  Cor.  i.  30;  which  is  re- 
ceived and  appropriated  by  us  through  faith,  Rom.  iii.  22 ;  iv. 
11;  x.  5-10;  Gal.  ii.  21;  Heb.  xi.  7. 

The  phrase,  "  righteousness  of  God,"  occurs  in  Matt.  vi.  33 ; 
Rom.  i.  17;  iii.  5,  21,  22,  25,  26;  x.  3;  2  Cor.  v.  21;  Phil.  iii.  9; 
James  i.  20 ;  2  Pet.  i.  1.  It  evidently  means  that  perfect  right- 
eousness or  satisfaction  to  the  whole  law,  precept,  and  penalty 
alike,  which  God  provides,  and  which  God  will  accept,  in  con- 
trast to  our  own  imperfect  services  or  self-inflicted  penances, 
which  God  will  reject,  if  offered  as  a  ground  of  justification. 

5.  What  is  the  usage  of  the  term  8ixaioo6is,  justification,  in  tJie 
New  Testament? 

It  occurs  only  in  Rom.  iv.  25;  v.  16,  18.  It  signifies  that 
relation  to  the  law  into  which  we  are  brought  in  consequence 
)f  the  righteousness  of  Christ  being  made  legally  ours.     We 


498  JUSTIFICA  TION. 

are  absolved  from  all  liability  to  the  penalty,  and  the  rewards 
promised  to  obedience  are  declared  to  belong  to  us. 

6.  Define  justification  in  its  gospel  sense. 

God,  as  sovereign,  elected  his  chosen  people,  and  gave  them 
to  his  Son  in  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  as  sovereign  he  exe- 
cutes that  covenant  when  he  makes  the  righteousness  of  Christ 
theirs  by  imputation.  Justification,  on  the  other  hand,  is  a 
judicial  act  of  God  proceeding  upon  that  sovereign  imputa- 
tion, declaring  the  law  to  be  perfectly  satisfied  in  respect  to  us. 
This  involves,  1st,  pardon;  2d,  restoration  to  divine  favor,  as 
those  with  regard  to  whom  all  the  promises  conditioned  upon 
obedience  to  the  commands  of  the  law  accrue.  It  is  most 
strictly  legal,  although  he  sovereignly  admits  and  credits  to  us 
a  vicarious  righteousness,  since  this  vicarious  righteousness  is 
precisely  in  all  respects  what  the  law  demands,  and  that  by 
which  the  law  is  fulfilled. — See  below,  Question  28. 

7.  What  does  the  law  require  in  order  to  the  justification  of  a 
sinner  ? 

The  law  consists  essentially  of  a  rule  of  duty,  and  of  a 
penalty  attached  to  take  effect  in  case  of  disobedience.  In 
the  case  of  the  sinner,  therefore,  who  has  already  incurred 
guilt,  the  law  demands  that,  besides  the  rendering  of  per- 
fect obedience,  the  penalty  also  should  be  suffered. — Rom.  x.  5 ; 
Gal.  iii.  10-13. 

8.  Prove  that  ivories  can  not  he  the  ground  of  a  sinner's  jus- 
tification. 

Paul  repeatedly  asserts  this  (Gal.  ii.  16),  and  declares  that 
we  are  not  justified  hj  our  own  righteousness,  which  comes  by 
obedience  to  the  law. — Phil.  iii.  9.  He  also  proves  the  same 
by  several  arguments — 

1st.  The  law  demands  perfect  obedience.  All  works  not 
perfect,  therefore,  lead  to  condemnation,  and  no  act  of  obedi- 
ence at  one  time  can  atone  for  disobedience  at  another. — Gal. 
iii.  10,  21 ;  v.  3. 

2d.  If  we  are  justified  by  works,  then  Christ  is  dead  in  vain. 
Gal.  ii.  21 ;  v.  4. 

3d.  If  it  were  of  works  it  would  not  be  of  grace. — Rom. 
xi.  6;  Eph.  ii.  8,  9. 

4th.  It  would  afford  cause  for  boasting. — Rom.  iii.  27 ;  iv.  2. 

5th.  He  also  quotes  the  Old  Testament  to  prove  that  all  men 
are  sinners,  Rom.  iii.  9,  10;  that  consequently  they  can  not  be 
justified   by  works. — Ps.   cxliii.   2;  Rom.   iii.   20.     He  quotes 


NOT  FOUNDED    ON    WORKS.  499 

Hab.  ii.  4,  to  prove  that  "the  just  by  faith  shall  live";  and  he 
cites  the  example  of  Abraham. — Gal.  iii.  6. 

9.  What  are  the  different  opinions  as  to  the  kind  of  ivories  which 
t/ie  Scriptures  teach  are  not  sufficient  for  justification? 

The  Pelagians  admit  that  works  of  obedience  to  the  cere- 
monial law  are  of  this  nature,  but  affirm  that  works  of  obedi- 
ence to  the  moral  law  are  the  proper  and  only  ground  of  justi- 
fication. The  Romanists  admit  that  works  wrought  in  the 
natural  strength,  previous  to  regeneration,  are  destitute  of 
merit,  and  unavailable  for  justification,  but  they  maintain  that 
original  sin  and  previous  actual  transgressions  having  been 
forgiven  in  baptism  for  Christ's  sake,  good  works  afterwards 
performed  through  grace  have,  in  consequence  of  the  merits  of 
Christ,  the  virtue,  1st,  of  meriting  heaven;  2d,  of  making  satis- 
faction for  sins.  We  are  justified,  then,  by  evangelical  obedi- 
ence.— "Cat.  Rom.,"  Part  II.,  Chapter  v.;  "Council  of  Trent," 
Sess.  VI.,  Can.  xxiv.,  and  xxxii.  Protestants  deny  the  justi- 
fying efficiency  of  all  classes  of  works  equally. 

10.  How  may  it  be  shown  that  no  class  of  ivories,  whether'  cere- 
monial, moral,  or  spiritual,  can  justify  ? 

1st.  When  the  Scriptures  deny  that  justification  can  be  by 
works,  the  term  "  works  "  is  always  used  generally  as  obedience 
to  the  whole  revealed  will  of  God,  however  made  known. 
Works  of  obedience  rendered  to  one  law,  as  a  ground  of  justi- 
fication, are  never  contrasted  with  works  wrought  in  obedience 
to  another  law,  but  with  grace. — Rom.  xi.  6;  iv.  4.  God 
demands  perfect  obedience  to  his  whole  will  as  revealed  to  any 
individual  man.  But  since  every  man  is  a  sinner,  justification 
by  the  law  is  equally  impossible  for  all. — Rom.  ii.  14,  15; 
iii.  9,  10. 

2d.  The  believer  is  justified  without  the  deeds  of  the  law, 
Rom.  iii.  28,  and  God  justifies  the  ungodly  in  Christ. — Rom.  iv.  5. 

3d.  Justification  is  asserted  to  rest  altogether  upon  a  differ- 
ent foundation.  It  is  "in  the  name  of  Christ,"  1  Cor.  vi.  11; 
"by  his  blood,"  Rom.  v.  9;  "freely,"  "by  his  grace,"  "by  faith." 
Rom.  iii.  24,  28. 

4th.  Paul  proves  that  instead  of  our  being  justified  by  good 
works,  such  works  are  rendered  possible  to  us  only  in  that  new 
relation  to  God  into  which  we  are  introduced  by  justification. 
Eph.  ii.  8-10;  Rom.  6th  aud  7th  chapters. 

11.  How  can  James  ii.  14-26,  be  reconciled  with  this  doctrine  ? 

James  is  not  speaking  of  the  meritorious  ground  of  justifi- 
cation, but  of  the  relation  which  good  works  sustain  to  a  gen- 


600  JUS  TIFICA  TION. 

nine  faith  as  its  fruit  and  evidence.  The  meritorious  ground 
of  justification  is  the  righteousness  of  Christ. — Rom.  x.  4;  1 
Cor.  i.  30.  Faith  is  the  essential  prerequisite  and  instrument 
of  receiving  that  righteousness. — Eph.  ii.  8.  James,  in  the 
passage  cited,  simply  declares  and  argues  the  truth  that  the 
faith  which  is  thus  the  instrumental  cause  of  justification,  is 
never  a  dead,  but  always  a  living  and  fruitful  principle.  Paul 
teaches  the  same  truth  often,  "Faith  works  by  love,"  Gal. 
v.  6,  and  "  love  is  the  fulfilling  of  the  law,"  Rom.  xiii.  10. 

12.  What  do  the  Scriptures  declare  to  be  the  true  and  only 
ground  of  justification  ? 

Justification  is  a  declaration  on  the  part  of  the  infinitely 
wise  and  holy  God  that  the  law  is  satisfied.  The  law  is,  like 
its  Author,  absolutely  unchangeable,  and  can  be  satisfied  by 
nothing  else  than  an  absolutely  perfect  righteousness,  at  once 
fulfilling  the  precept,  and  suffering  the  penalty.  This  was 
rendered  by  Christ  as  our  representative,  and  his  perfect  right- 
eousness, as  imputed  to  us,  is  the  sole  and  strictly  legal  ground 
of  our  justification.  Thus  he  is  made  for  us  the  end  of  the  law 
for  righteousness,  and  we  are  made  the  righteousness  of  God 
in  him. — Rom.  iii.  24;  v.  9,  19;  viii.  1;  x.  4;  1  Cor.  i.  30;  vi.  11 ; 
2  Cor.  v.  21;  Phil.  iii.  9. 

13.  Hoio  can  it  be  proved  that  Christ's  active  obedience  to  the 
precepts  of  the  law  is  included  in  that  righteousness  by  ivhich  toe 
are  justified? 

1st.  The  condition  of  the  covenant  of  works  was  perfect 
obedience.  This  covenant  having  failed  in  the  hands  of  the 
first  Adam  must  be  fulfilled  in  the  hands  of  the  second  Adam, 
since  in  the  covenant  of  grace  Christ  assumed  all  of  the  undis- 
charged obligations  of  his  people  under  the  covenant  of  works 
His  suffering  discharges  the  penalty,  but  only  his  active  obe 
dience  fulfills  the  condition. 

2d.  All  the  promises  of  salvation  are  attached  to  obedience 
not  to  suffering. — Matt.  xix.  16,  17;  Gal.  iii.  12. 

3d.  Christ  came  to  fulfil  the  whole  law. — Is.  xlii.  21 ;  Rom. 
iii.  31 ;  1  Cor.  i.  30. 

4th.  The  obedience  of  Christ  is  expressly  contrasted  with 
the  disobedience  of  Adam. — Rom.  v.  19. 

14.  How  may  it  be  shown  that  Christ's  obedience  was  free  ? 

Although  Christ  was  made  under  the  law  by  being  born  of 
the  woman,  and  rendered  obedience  to  that  law  in  the  exercises 
of  his  created  human  nature,  yet  he  did  not  owe  that  obedience 


IMPUTATION   OF   CHRIST'S   RIGHTEOUSNESS.  501 

for  himself,  but  rendered  it  freely  that  its  merits  might  be  im- 
puted to  his  people,  because  the  claims  of  law  terminate  not 
upon  nature,  but  upon  persons;  and  he  was  always  a  divine 
person.  As  he  suffered,  the  just  for  the_  unjust,  so  he  obeyed, 
the  Lawgiver  in  the  place  of  the  law-subject. 

15.  In  ivhat  sense  is  Christ's  righteousness  imputed  to  believers  ? 

Imputation  is  an  act  of  God  as  sovereign  judge,  at  once  ju- 
dicial and  sovereign,  whereby  (1)  he  makes  the  guilt  and.  legal 
responsibilities  of  our  sins  really  Christ's,  and  punishes  him  for 
them.  "  He  was  wounded  for  our  transgression,  the  punishment 
of  our  peace  was  upon  him." — Is.liii.  5  and  11.  "Christ  hath 
redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  being  made  a  curse 
for  us." — Gal.  iii.  13.  "  For  he  hath  made  him  to  be  sin  for  us, 
who  knew  no  sin,  that  we  might  be  made  the  righteousness 
of  God  in  him."— 2  Cor.  v.  21;  John  i.  29.  (2.)  He  makes  the  / 
righteousness  of  Christ  ours  (that  is,  the  legal  right  to  reward, 
by  the  gracious  covenant  conditioned  on  righteousness),  and 
then  treats  us  as  persons  legally  invested  with  those  rights. 
"  Even  as  David  also  describeth  the  blessedness  of  the  man  to 
whom  the  Lord  imputeth  righteousness  without  works." — Rom. 
iv.  6.  "  For  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law  for  righteousness  to 
every  one  that  believeth." — Rom.  x.  4;  1  Cor.  i.  30;  2  Cor.  v.  21; 
Phil.  iii.  9. 

"Imputation"  is  the  charging  or  crediting  to  one's  account 
as  the  ground  of  judicial  treatment. 

"  Guilt "  is  the  just  obligation  to  punishment.  The  reatus 
pamce,  or  "  guilt  of  punishment,"  is  imputed  to  Christ  in  our 
stead.     The  reatus  culpce,  or  guilt  of  fault,  remains  ours. 

"  Righteousness  imputed  "  is  the  vicarious  fulfillment  of  all 
the  covenant  demands  on  which  eternal  life  is  conditioned. 

"  Merit "  is  that  which  deserves  on  the  ground  of  covenant 
promise  a  reward.  The  merit  of  reward  is  imputed  to  us  from 
Christ,  the  merit  of  praiseworthiness  remains  his  forever. 

As  Christ  is  not  made  a  sinner  by  the  imputation  to  him  of 
our  sins,  so  we  are  not  made  holy  by  the  imputation  to  us  of 
his  righteousness.  The  transfer  is  only  of  guilt  from  us  to  him, 
and  of  merit  from  him  to  us.  He  justly  suffered  the  punish- 
ment due  to  our  sins,  and  we  justly  receive  the  rewards  due  to 
his  righteousness. — 1  John  i.  9.  For  explanation  of  "  Imputa- 
tion," see  above,  Chap.  XXL,  Ques.  12,  and  Chap.  XXV.,  Ques.  9. 

16.  Upon  what  ground  does  this  imputation  proceed?  && 

Upon  the  union  federal,  spiritual,  and  vital,  which  subsists 
between  Christ  and  his  people.  Which  union,  in  turn,  rests 
upon  the  eternal  decree  of  election  common  to  all  the  persons 


602  JUS  TIFICA  TION. 

of  the  Godhead,  and  upon  the  eternal  covenant  of  grace  formed 
between  the  Father  as  God  absolute  and  the  Son  as  Mediator 
Thus  the  ultimate  ground  of  imputation  is  the  eternal  nature 
and  imperial  will  of  God,  the  fountain  of  all  law  and  all  right. 

17.  Hoiu  may  tlie  fact  of  this  imputation  be  proved  from 
Scripture  ? 

See  Rom.  v.  12-21.  Compare  Rom.  iv.  6;  iii.  21,  with 
Rom.  v.  19. 

The  doctrine  of  imputation  is  essentially  involved  in  the 
doctrine  of  substitution.  If  Christ  obeyed  and  suffered  in  our 
place  it  can  only  be  because  our  sins  were  imputed  to  him, 
which  is  directly  asserted  in  Scripture,  Isa.  liii.  6;  2  Cor.  v.  21; 
1  Pet.  ii.  24;  and,  if  so,  the  merit  of  that  obedience  and  suffer- 
ing must  accrue  to  us,  Matt.  xx.  28 ;  1  Tim.  ii.  6 ;  1  Pet.  iii.  18. 
See  above,  Chapter  XXL,  Question  12. 

This  doctrine  is  also  taught  by  those  passages  which  affirm 
that  Christ  fulfilled  the  law,  Rom.  iii.  31;  x.  4;  and  by  those 
which  assert  that  we  are  justified  by  the  righteousness  of  Christ, 
1  Cor.  vi.  11;  Rom.  viii.  1,  etc. 

This  doctrine,  moreover,  stands  or  falls  with  the  whole  view 
we  have  presented  of  the  priesthood  of  Christ,  of  the  justice  of 
God,  of  the  covenants  of  works  and  of  grace,  and  of  the  nature 
of  the  atonement;  to  which  subjects,  under  their  respective 
heads,  the  reader  is  referred. 

18.  What  are  the  two  effects  ascribed  to  the  imputation  of 
Christ's  righteousness  ? 

Christ's  righteousness  satisfies,  1st,  the  penalty  of  the  law; 
2d,  then  the  positive  conditions  of  the  covenant  of  works,  i.  e., 
obedience  to  the  precepts  of  the  law.  The  imputation  of  that 
righteousness  to  the  believer,  therefore,  secures,  1st,  the  remis- 
sion of  the  penalty,  pardon  of  sins;  2d,  the  recognition  and 
treatment  of  the  believer  as  one  with  respect  to  whom  the 
covenant  is  fulfilled,  and  to  whom  all  its  promises  and  advan- 
tages legally  accrue. — See  below,  Question  28. 

19.  Are  the  sins  of  believers,  committed  subsequently  to  their 
justification,  included  in  the  pardon  which  is  consequent  to  the  im- 
putation of  Christ's  righteousness;  and,  if  so,  in  ivhat  way  ? 

The  elect,  although  embraced  in  the  purpose  of  God,  and  in 
his  covenant  with  his  Son  from  eternity,  are  not  effectively 
united  to  Christ  until  the  time  of  their  regeneration,  when,  in 
consequence  of  their  union  with  him,  and  the  imputation  of  his 
righteousness  to  them,  their  relation  to  the  law  is  permanently 
changed.     Although  the  immutable  law  always  continues  their 


RELATION   OF  FAITH    TO    JUSTIFICATION.  503 

perfect  standard  of  experience  and  of  action,  it  is  no  longer  to 
them  a  condition  of  the  covenant  of  life,  because  that  covenant 
has  been  fully  discharged  for  them  by  their  sponsor.  God  no 
longer  imputes  sin  to  them  to  the  end  of  judicial  punishment. 
Every  suffering  which  they  henceforth  endure  is  of  the  nature 
of  chastisement,  designed  for  their  correction  and  improve- 
ment, and  forms,  in  its  relation  to  them,  no  part  of  the  penalty 
of  the  law. 

20.  What  are  the  different  opinions  as  to  the  class  of  sins  ivhich 
are  forgiven  ivlien  the  sinner  is  justified? 

Romanists  teach  that  original  sin  and  all  actual  transgres- 
sions prior  to  baptism  are  forgiven  for  Christ's  sake,  through 
the  reception  of  that  sacrament,  and  that  after  baptism,  sins, 
as  they  are  'jommitted,  are  through  the  merits  of  Christ  for- 
given in  thti  observance  of  the  sacrament  of  penance.  See 
above,  Chapter  XXXIL,  Question  11. 

Dr.  Pusey  has  revived  an  ancient  doctrine  that  in  baptism 
all  past  sins,  original  and  actual,  are  forgiven;  but  his  system 
makes  no  provision  for  sins  subsequently  committed. 

Many  Protestants  have  held  that  only  past  and  present  sins 
are  forgiven  hi  the  first  act  of  justification,  and  that  sins  after 
regeneration,  as  they  occur,  are  forgiven  upon  renewed  acts  of 
faith. 

The  true  view,  however,  is,  that  in  consequence  of  the 
imputation  to  him  of  Christ's  righteousness,  the  believer  is 
emancipated  from  his  former  federal  relation  to  the  law,  and 
consequently  henceforth  no  sin  is  charged  to  him  to  the  end  of 
judicial  condemnation.  This  follows  from  the  nature  of  justifi- 
cation, as  stated  above,  and  it  is  illustrated  by  the  recorded 
experience  of  Paul,  who,  while  complaining  of  the  law  of  sin, 
still  warring  in  his  members,  yet  never  doubted  of  his  filial 
relation  to  God,  nor  of  the  forgiveness  of  his  sins. 

21.  What  are  the  different  opinions  as  to  the  relation  hetioeen 
faith  and  justifi,cation? 

Socinians  hold  that  faith,  including  obedience,  is  the  proper 
meritorious  ground  of  justification. — "  Cat.  Rac,"  Quest.  418-421, 
and  453. 

Arminians  teach  that  although  faith  has  no  merit  in  itself, 
since  it  is  the  gift  of  God,  yet,  as  a  living  principle,  including 
evangelical  obedience,  it  is  graciously,  for  Christ's  merits'  sake, 
imputed  to  us  for  righteousness,  L  e.,  accepted  as  righteousness, 
upon  the  ground  of  which  we  are  declared  just. — Limborch, 
"Theol.  Christ.,"  6,  4,  22,  and  6,  4,  46. 

The  orthodox  view  is  that  the  active  and  passive  obedience 


504  JUSTIFICATION. 

of  Christ  satisfying  both  the  precept  and  penalty  of  the  law  as 
a  covenant  of  life,  and  thus  constituting  a  perfect  righteousness, 
is,  upon  being  appropriated  by  the  believer  in  the  act  of  faith, 
actually  made  his,  in  a  legal  sense,  by  imputation.  Faith,  there- 
fore, is  the  mere  instrument  whereby  we  partake  in  the  right- 
eousness of  Christ,  which  is  the  true  ground  of  our  justification. 

22.  Prove  from  Scripture  that  faith  is  only  the  instrumental 
cause  of  justification. 

1st.  From  the  nature  of  faith  itself.  (1.)  It  is  not  of  our- 
selves, it  is  the  gift  of  God.—  Eph.  ii.  8;  Phil.  i.  29.  (2.)  It  is 
one  of  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  and,  therefore,  not  the  meritorious 
ground  of  spiritual  blessings. — Gal.  v.  22.  (3.)  It  is  an  act  of 
the  soul,  and  therefore  a  work,  but  though,  by  means  of  faith, 
justification  is  not  by  works. — Rom.  iv.  2-5;  xi.  6.  (4.)  Justi- 
fying faith  terminates  on  or  in  Christ,  in  his  blood  and  sacrifice, 
and  in  the  promises  of  God ;  in  its  very,  essence,  therefore,  it 
involves  trust,  and,  denying  its  own  justifying  value,  affirms 
the  sole  merit  of  that  on  which  it  trusts. — Rom.  hi.  25,  26;  iv. 
20,  22;  Gal.  iii.  26;  Eph.  i.  12,  13;  1  John  v.  10.  (5.)  The  law 
necessarily  demands  a  perfect  righteousness,  but  faith,  even 
when  combined  with  the  evangelical  obedience  which  springs 
from  it,  is  not  a  perfect  righteousness. 

2d.  The  Scriptures,  when  referring  to  the  relation  of  justifi- 
cation to  faith,  use  the  terms  hn  7tidrEGos,  by  faith,  and  Sid  itidTEoos, 
by  or  through  faith,  but  never  Sid  xi6nvy  on  account  of  faith, 
Gal.  ii.  16. 

3d.  Faith  is  distinguished  from  the  righteousness  which  it 
apprehends. — Rom  i.  17;  Phil.  iii.  8-11.     Turretin,  L.  16,  Q.  7. 

23.  What  is  the  specific  object  of  justifying  faith  ? 

The  Socinians,  denying  the  divinity  of  Christ,  make  the  act 
of  justifying  faith  to  terminate  "in  God  through  Christ." — "Rac. 
Cat./'  Sec.  5.,  Ch.  9. 

The  Romanists,  confounding  justification  and  sanctification, 
make  the  whole  revelation  of  God  the  object  of  the  faith  that 
justifies. — "Cat.  Rom."  Part  1,  Chap.  1. 

The  Scriptural  doctrine  is,  that  while  the  renewed  heart 
believes  equally  every  ascertained  word  of  God,  the  specific  act 
of  faith,  whereby  we  are  justified,  terminates  upon  the  person 
and  work  of  Christ  as  Mediator. 

This  is  proved,  1st,  from  express  declarations  of  Scripture. 
Rom.  iii.  22,  25;  Gal.  ii.  16;  Phil.  iii.  9.  2d.  By  the  declara- 
tion that  we  are  saved  by  believing  in  him. — Acts  x.  43; 
xvi.  31 ;  John  iii.  16,  36.  3d.  By  those  figurative  expressions 
which  illustrate  the  act  of  saving  faith  as  "looking  to  Christ,*' 


OBJECTIONS   ANSWERED.  505 

etc.— Is.  xlv.  22;  John  i.  12;  vi.  35,  37;  Matt.  xi.  28.  4th.  Unbe- 
lief is  the  refusing  the  righteousness  which  God  provides,  i.  e.f 
Christ. — Rom.  x.  3,  4. 

24.  What  is  tJie  nature  of  that  peace  which  flows  from  justifi- 
cation ? 

1st.  Peace  with  God,  his  justice  being  completely  satisfied 
through  the  righteousness  of  Christ. — Rom.  v.  1;  2  Cor.  v.  19; 
Col.  i.  21 ;  Eph.  ii.  14.  In  witness  whereof  his  Holy  Spirit  is 
given  to  us. — Rom.  viii.  15,  16;  Heb.  x.  15,  17.  His  love  shed 
abroad  in  our  hearts,  Rom.  v.  5,  and  our  habitual  fellowship 
with  him  established,  1  John  i.  3.  2d.  Inward  peace  of  con- 
science, including  consciousness  of  our  reconciliation  with  God 
tlixough  the  operation  of  his  Spirit,  as  above,  and  the  appease- 
ment of  our  self-condemning  conscience  through  the  apprehen- 
sion of  the  righteousness  by  which  we  are  justified. — Heb.  ix.  14; 
x.  2,  22. 

25.  What  other  benefits  flow  from  justification  ? 

Being  justified  on  the  ground  of  a  perfect  righteousness,  our 
whole  relation  to  God  and  the  law  is  changed ;  the  gift  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  adoption,  sanctification,  perseverance,  the  working 
of  all  tilings  together  for  good  in  this  life,  deliverance  in  death, 
the  resurrection  of  the  body,  and  the  final  glorification,  all 
result. 

Objections  Answered. 

26.  State  and  Refute  the  principal  objections  made  to  the 
Protestant  doctrine  of  justification. 

1st.  That  it  is  legal,  and  therefore  excludes  grace. 

We  answer — that  it  is  transcendently  gracious.  1.  The 
admission  of  a  substitute  for  guilty  sinners  was  an  act  of  grace. 
2.  The  vicarious  obedience  and  sufferings  of  the  God-man  were 
of  infinite  grace.  3.  The  imputation  of  his  righteousness  to  an 
individual  elected  out  of  the  mass  of  fallen  humanity  is  an  act 
of  pure  grace.  Hence,  4,  the  entire  subsequent  regarding  and 
treating  the  believer  as  righteous,  is  a  woi*k  of  grace. 

2d.  That  it  is  impious  because  it  declares  the  sinner  to  be 
righteous  with  the  very  righteousness  of  Christ. 

We  answer.  It  is  not  impious  because — 1.  This  righteous- 
ness was  freely  wrought  out  with  the  intention  it  should  be 
ours,  and  it  is  freely  given  to  us.  2.  It  is  not  Christ's  per- 
sonal subjective  righteousness  which  is  incommunicable,  l)ut 
his  vicarious  fulfillment  of  the  covenant  of  life  under  which  we 
were  created  which  is  imputed  to  us.     3.  The  merit  of  praise 


506  J  US  TIFICA  TION. 

worthiness  is  retained  by  Christ,  only  its  merit  of  rewardable* 
ness  is  given  to  us.  4.  It  is  given  to  us  gratuitously,  that 
the  praise  of  glorious  grace  may  redound  to  Christ  alone. 

3d.  That  gratuitous  justification  by  faith  leads  to  licen- 
tiousness. 

Paul  answers,  Rom.  vi.  2-7: 

Prop.  1st.  Where  sin  abounded  grace  did  much  more  abound. 
Rom.  v.  20. 

Prop.  2d.  Shall  we  conclude,  therefore,  that  we  are  to  con- 
tinue in  sin  that  grace  may  abound?    God  forbid. — Rom.  vi.  1,  2. 

Prop.  3d.  The  federal  union  of  the  believer  with  Christ,  which 
secures  our  justification,  is  the  foundation  of,  and  is  insepara- 
ble from,  that  vital  spiritual  union  with  him,  which  secures  our 
sanctification. 

Prop.  4th.  This  method  of  justification,  so  far  from  leading 
to  licentiousness,  secures  the  only  conditions  under  which  we 
could  be  holy.  (1.)  This  method  of  justification,  by  changing 
our  relation  to  God,  enables  us  to  return  to  him  in  a  way  of  a 
free,  loving  service. — Rom.  vi.  14;  vii.  1-6.  (2.)  It  alone  de- 
livers us  from  the  spirit  of  bondage  and  fear,  and  gives  us  that 
of  adoption  and  love. — Rom.  viii.  1-17;  xiii.  10;  Gal.  v.  6;  1  John 
iv.  18;  2  John  6. 

27.  In  what  respect  did  the  doctrine  of  Piscator  on  this  subject 
differ  from  that  of  the  Reformed  Chur  elves? 

Piscator,  a  Protestant  divine,  Prof,  at  Herborn  (1584-1625), 
taught,  1st,  that,  as  to  his  human  nature,  Christ  was  under  the 
law  in  the  same  sense  as  any  other  creature,  and  that,  therefore, 
he  could  only  obey  the  law  for  himself;  2d,  that  if  Christ  had 
obeyed  the  law  in  our  place,  the  law  could  not  claim  a  second 
fulfillment  of  us,  and,  consequently,  Christians  would  be  under 
no  obligations  to  obey  the  law  of  God ;  3d,  that  if  Christ  had 
both  obeyed  the  precept  of  the  law  and  suffered  its  penalty, 
then  the  law  would  have  been  doubly  fulfilled,  since  the  claims 
of  the  precept  and  the  penalty  of  the  law  are  alternative,  not 
coincident. 

This  doctrine  was  expressly  condemned  in  the  Reformed 
Churches  of  Switzerland  and  Holland,  and  by  the  French 
synods  held  in  the  years  1603,  1612,  and  1614.  In  1615,  how- 
ever, the  Synod  tacitly  allowed  these  views  to  pass  without 
condemnation. — Mosheim's  "  Hist." 

28.  How  may  it  be  shown  that  justification  is  not  mere  pardon? 

Piscator  erred,  from  failing  to  distinguish — 1st  That  the 
claims  of  law  terminate  not  upon  natures,  but  upon  persons. 
Christ  was  a  divine  person,  and,  therefore,  his  obedience  was 


OBJECTIONS   ANSWERED.  507 

free.  2d.  That  there  is  an  evident  difference  betv/een  a  federal 
relation  to  the  law  as  a  condition  of  salvation,  and  a  natural 
relation  to  law  as  a  rule  of  life.  Christ  discharged  the  former 
as  our  federal  representative.  The  latter  necessarily  attaches 
to  the  believer  as  to  all  moral  agents  forever. 

Justification  is  more  than  pardon — 1st.  Because  the  very 
word  "to  justify"  proves  it.  To  "pardon"  is,  in  the  exercise  of 
sovereign  prerogative,  to  waive  the  execution  of  the  penal  sanc- 
tions of  the  law.  "  To  justify  "  is  to  declare  that  the  demands 
of  the  laAv  are  satisfied,  not  waived.  Pardon  is  a  sovereign  act 
— justification  is  a  judicial  act.  2d.  As  we  proved  under  Chap. 
XXV.,  Christ  did  in  strict  rigor  of  justice  satisfy  vicariously  for  us 
the  demands  of  the  law,  both  the  obedience  demanded  and  the 
penalty  denounced.  His  satisfaction  is  the  ground  of  our  justi- 
cation.  But  pardon  is  remission  of  penalty  in  absence  of  satis- 
faction. 3d.  If  justification  were  mere  pardon  it  would  simply 
release  us  from  penal  suffering,  but  would  provide  no  further 
good  for  us.  But  "justification  through  faith  in  Christ,"  se- 
cures not  pardon  only,  but  also  peace,  grace,  reconciliation, 
adoption  of  sons,  coheirship,  etc.,  etc. — See  above,  Ques.  13. 
Rom  v.  1-10;  Acts  xxvi.  18;  Rev.  i.  5,  6. 

In  the  case  of  justified  believers  "justification  "includes  "par- 
don." Our  justification  proceeds  on  the  ground  of  a  "satisfac- 
tion," and,  therefore,  is  not  mere  pardon.  But  it  is  a  "  vicari- 
ous "  satisfaction  graciously  set  to  the  credit  of  the  unworthy, 
and,  therefore,  it  effects  pardon  to  us  sinners  who  believe  in 
Christ. 

29.  Did  not  Calvin  often  use  language  to  the  effect  that  justijica- 
ti(m  and  pardon  are  the  same  ? 

He  did.  But  his  language  is  to  be  interpreted — 1st.  By  the 
fact  that  he  was  arguing  with  Romanists  who  taught  that  "jus- 
tification consists  in  remission  of  sins  and  infusion  of  grace." 
He  argued  in  opposition  that  justification  consists  in  the  former 
but  does  not  include  the  latter.  2d.  By  the  conclusive  fact 
that  his  full  definitions  of  justification  comprehend  the  full 
truth  more  accurately  defined  in  the  Symbols  of  the  Lutheran 
and  Reformed  Churches. 

Calvin's  "Institutes ," Bk.  3,  ch.  11,  \  2. — "A  man  is  said  to  be  justi- 
fied in  the  sight  of  God,  when  in  the  judgment  of  God  he  is  decreed 
righteous,  and  is  accepted  on  account  of  his  righteousness.  ...  In 
the  same  manner  a  man  will  be  said  to  be  justified  by  works,  if  in  his  lif  e, 
or  by  the  perfection  of  his  works,  he  can  answer  and  satisfy  the  divine 
justice.  On  the  contrary  a  man  will  be  justified  by  faith,  when  excluded 
from  the  righteousness  of  works,  he  by  faith  lays  hold  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ,  and  clothed  in  it  appears  in  the  sight  of  God  not  as  sinner, 


608  JUSTIFICATION. 

but  as  righteous.  Thus  we  simply  interpret  justification,  as  the  accept" 
ance  with  which  God  receives  us  into  his  favor  as  if  we  were  righteous, 
and  wo  say  that  this  JTistification  consists  in  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  and 
the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ." 

Calvin's  "Com.,"  1  Cor.  i.  30. — "  'Christ  is  made  unto  us  righteous- 
ness,' by  which,  he  (the  apostle)  understood  that  we  are  accepted  by  God 
in  his  name  (Christ's),  because  he  expiated  our  sins,  and  his  obedience  is 
imputed  to  us  for  righteousness.  For  since  the  righteousness  of  faith 
consists  in  remission  of  sins,  and  in  gratuitous  acceptance,  we  obtain 
both  through  Christ." 

30.  In  ivhat  respect  does  the  governmental  tlwory  of  the  atone- 
ment modify  the  doctrine  of  justification  ? 

See  above,  Chap.  XXV.,  Question  27. 

1st.  It  follows,  from  that  theory,  that  justification  is  a  sov- 
ereign, not  a  judicial  act  of  God.  Christ  has  not  satisfied  the 
law,  but  merely  made  it  consistent  with  the  government  of 
God  to  set  aside  the  law  in  the  case  of  believing  men.  It  is 
mere  pardon,  an  act  of  executive  clemency. 

2d.  As  Christ  did  not  die  as  a  substitute,  it  follows  that  his 
righteousness  is  not  imputed;  it  is  the  occasion,  not  the  ground 
of  justification. 

3d.  As  Christ  did  not  die  as  a  substitute,  there  is  no  strictly 
federal  union  between  Christ  and  his  people,  and  faith  can  not 
be  the  instrument  of  salvation  by  being  the  means  of  uniting 
us  to  Christ,  but  only  the  arbitrary  condition  of  justification,  or 
the  means  of  recommending  us  to  God. 

4th.  As  justification  is  mere  pardon,  it  only  sets  aside  con- 
demnation, and  renders,  so  far  forth,  future  salvation  possible. 
It  does  nothing  to  secure  the  future  standing  and  relations  of 
the  believer,  under  the  covenant  of  salvation,  to  God. 

Dr.  Emmons  (1745-1840),  one  of  the  ablest  theologians  of 
the  New  England  School,  says  ("  Sermons,"  Vol.  III.,  p.  3-67) — 
(1.)  "Justification,  in  a  gospel  sense,  signifies  no  more  nor  less 
than  pardon  or  remission  of  sin."  (2.)  "Forgiveness  is  the 
only  favor  which  God  bestows  upon  men  on  Christ's  account." 
(3.)  "The  full  and  final  justification  of  believers,  or  their  title 
to  their  eternal  inheritance,  is  conditional.  They  must  perform 
certain  things,  which  he  has  specified  as  terms  or  conditions  of 
their  taking  possession  of  their  several  legacies."  (4.)  "God 
does  promise  eternal  life  to  all  who  obey  his  commands  or 
exercise  those  holy  and  benevolent  affections  which  his  com- 
mands require." 

31.  Hoiv  does  the  Arminian  theory  as  to  the  nature  and  design 
of  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  modify  the  doctrine  of  justif  cation  ? 

They  hold  —  1st  As  to  the  nature  of  Christ's  satisfaction, 


THE   ARMINIAN,    AND    THE   ROMISH  DOCTRINE.        509 

that  although  it  was  a  real  propitiation  rendered  to  justice 
for  us,  it  was  not  in  the  rigor  of  justice  perfect,  but  was  gra- 
ciously accepted  and  acted  on  as  such  by  God. — Limborch, 
"Apol.  Theo.,"  3,  22,  5.  2d.  That  it  was  not  strictly  the  sub- 
stitution  of  Christ  in  place  of  his  elect,  but  rather  that  he  suf- 
fered the  wrath  of  God  in  behalf  of  all  men,  in  order  to  make 
it  consistent  with  justice  for  God  to  offer  salvation  to  all  men 
upon  condition  of  faith. 

Therefore  they  regard  justification  as  a  sovereign,  not  a 
judicial  act — 1st.  In  accepting  the  sufferings  of  Christ  as  suf- 
ficient to  enable  God  consistently  to  offer  to  men  salvation  on 
the  terms  of  the  new  covenant  of  grace,  i.  e.,  on  the  condition 
of  faith.  2d.  In  imputing  to  the  believer  his  faith  for  right- 
eousness for  Christ's  sake. 

This  faith  they  make  —  1st.  To  include  evangelical  obedi- 
ence, i.  e.,  the  whole  principle  of  religion  in  heart  and  life. 
2d.  They  regard  it  as  the  graciously  admitted  ground,  rather 
than  the  mere  instrument  of  justification ;  faith  being  counted 
for  righteousness,  because  Christ  died.  —  Limborch,  "  Theo. 
Christ,"  6,  4,  22,  and  6,  4,  46. 

This  theory,  besides  being  opposed  by  all  the  arguments 
we  have  above  presented  in  establishing  the  orthodox  doctrine, 
labors  under  the  further  objections — 

1st.  It  fails  to  render  a  clear  account  as  to  how  the  satis- 
faction of  Christ  makes  it  consistent  with  divine  justice  to  save 
men  upon  the  condition  of  faith.  If  Christ  did  not  obey  and 
suffer  strictly  as  the  substitute  of  his  people,  it  is  difficult  to 
see  how  the  justice  of  God,  as  it  respects  them,  could  have 
been  appeased ;  and  if  he  did  so  fulfil  the  demands  of  justice 
in  their  place,  then  the  orthodox  view,  as  above  stated,  is 
admitted. 

2d.  It  fails  to  render  a  clear  account  of  the  relation  of  faith 
to  justification — (1.)  Because  faith  in  Christ,  including  trust, 
necessarily  implies  that  the  merits  of  Christ  upon  which  the 
trust  terminates  is  the  ground  of  justification.  (2.)  Faith  must 
be  either  the  ground  or  the  mere  instrument  of  justification. 
If  it  be  the  latter  then  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  which  is 
the  object  of  faith,  is  that  ground.  If  it  be  the  former,  then 
what  is  made  of  the  merits  of  Christ  upon  which  faith  rests? 

32.  How  do  the  Romanists  define  justification? 

They  confound  justification  with  sanctification.  It  is,  1st, 
the  forgiveness  of  sins;  2d,  the  removal  of  inherent  sin  for 
Christ's  sake ;  3d,  the  positive  infusion  of  grace. 

Of  this  justification  they  teach  that  the  final  cause  is  the 
glory  of  God  and  eternal  life      The  efficient  cause  is  the  power 


610  JUSTIFICATION. 

of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  meritorious  cause  the  work  of  Christ. 
The  instrumental  cause  baptism.  The  formal  cause  the  influ- 
ence of  grace,  whereby  we  are  made  not  merely  forensically 
but  inherently  righteous. — "  Council  of  Trent,"  Sess.  vi.,  Chap- 
ter vii. 

They  define  faith  in  its  relation  to  justification  to  be  the 
beginning  of  human  salvation,  the  fountain  and  root  of  all 
justification,  i.  e.,  of  spiritual  life.  They  consequently  hold 
that  justification  is  progressive,  and  that  when  a  man  receives 
a  new  nature  in  baptism,  and  the  work  of  justification  is  com- 
menced in  him  with  the  forgiveness  and  the  removal  of  sin, 
the  work  is  to  be  carried  on  by  the  exercise  of  the  grace  im- 
planted, i.  e.,  by  good  works.  Since  they  confound  justifica- 
tion with  sanctification,  they  necessarily  deny  that  men  are 
justified  by  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  or 
by  mere  faith  without  works. — Sess.  6,  Can.  9th  and  11th,  "de 
Justificatione." 

They  admit  that  justification  is  entirely  gracious,  i.  e.,  of 
the  mere  mercy  of  God,  and  for  the  sake  of  the  merits  of  Jesus 
Christ,  as  neither  the  spiritual  exercises  nor  the  works  of  men 
previous  to  justification  have  any  merit  whatsoever. — "Council 
of  Trent,"  Sess.  vi.,  Chapter  viii. 

A  careful  distinction  must  be  made  between  (a)  that  which 
in  the  case  of  an  adult  prepares  for  justification,  (b)  the  reali- 
zation of  justification  in  the  first  instance,  (c)  its  subsequent 
progressive  realization  in  the  advance  of  the  gracious  soul 
m  justification  towards  perfection,  and  (d)  the  restoration  to 
a  state  of  grace  of  the  baptized  Christian  after  backsliding 
into  sin. 

1st.  The  preparation  of  the  sinner  for  justification  proceeds 
from  the  prevenient  grace  of  God,  without  any  merit  on  the 
part  of  the  subject.  This  grace  acting  through  the  hearing 
of  the  word  leads  to  conviction  of  sin,  repentance,  apprehen- 
sion of  the  mercy  of  God  in  Christ  (the  church),  and  hence 
to  a  determination  to  receive  baptism  and  lead  a  new  life 
("  Cone.  Trent,"  Sess.  vi.,  chaps,  v.  and  vi). 

2d.  The  actual  justification  of  the  sinner  is  the  infusion  of 
gracious  habits,  the  pollution  of  sin  having  been  washed  away 
by  the  power  of  God,  on  account  of  the  merits  of  Christ,  through 
the  instrumentality  of  baptism,  which  operates  its  effects  by  an 
energy  made  inherent  in  it,  by  the  institution  of  God.  After 
this,  inherent  sin  being  removed,  remission  of  guilt  necessarilv 
follows  as  its  immediate  effect.  Guilt  is  the  relation  which 
sin  sustains  to  the  justice  of  God.  The  thing  being  removed, 
the  relation  ceases  ipso  facto  (Bellarmin,  "  De  Amiss.  Gratise,'' 
etc..  v.  7. 


THE    ROMISH  DOCTRINE.  511 

3d.  Having  thus  been  justified  and  made  a  friend  of  God, 
the  baptized  Christian  advances  from  virtue  to  virtue,  and  ia 
renewed  from  day  to  day,  through  the  observance  of  the  com- 
mandments of  God  and  of  the  church,  faith  co-operating  with 
good  works,  now  made  possible  in  virtue  of  the  previous  justi- 
fication, and  which  truly  merit,  and  receive  as  a  just  reward, 
increase  of  grace,  and  more  and  more  perfect  justification.  His 
first  justification  was  for  Christ's  sake,  without  any  co-opera- 
tion of  his  own  merit,  but  by  consent  of  his  own  will.  His  sec- 
ond or  continued  and  increasing  justification  is  for  Christ's  sake, 
through  and  in  proportion  to  his  own  merit,  which  deserves 
increase  of  grace  and  acceptance  in  proportion  (a)  to  his  per- 
sonal holiness,  and  (b)  to  his  obedience  to  ecclesiastical  rules 
("  Cone.  Trent,"  Sess.  6,  Chap.  x.  and  Can.  32). 

4th.  In  the  case  of  those  who  having  been  justified,  have 
sinned,  the  lost  grace  of  justification  is  restored,  for  the  merits 
of  Christ,  through  the  sacrament  of  Penance,  which  is  provided 
as  a  second  plank  to  rescue  those  who  have  shipwrecked  grace. 
This  penance  includes  (a)  sorrow  for  sin,  (b)  confession  to  a 
priest  having  jurisdiction,  (c)  sacerdotal  absolution,  (d)  satis- 
faction by  alms,  prayers,  fasts,  etc.,  and  this  justification  if  not 
rendered  perfect  by  these  means  on  earth  is  completed  by  pur- 
gatorial fires.  All  these  satisfactions,  earthly  and  purgatorial, 
are  meritorious  satisfactions  to  divine  justice,  cancelling  the 
temporal  punishments  attaching  to  the  sins  for  which  they  are 
undergone,  the  eternal  punishment  whereof  has  been  at  once 
and  freely  remitted,  either  through  the  sacrament  itself,  or  the 
honest  desire  for  it  ("Cone.  Trent,"  Sess.  6,  Chaps,  xiv.  and  xvi., 
and  Can.  30,  and  Sess.  14,  Chaps,  i.-ix). 

33.  What  are  the,  points  of  difference  between  Protestants  and 
Romanists  on  this  whole  subject  ? 

1st.  As  to  the  nature  of  justification.  We  regard  it  as  a 
judicial  act  of  God,  declaring  the  believer  to  be  forensically 
just,  on  the  ground  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  made  his  by 
imputation.     They  regard  it  as  the  infusion  of  inherent  grace. 

2d.  As  to  its  meritorious  ground.  Both  say  the  merits  of 
Christ.  But  they  say  these  merits  are  made  ours  by  sanctifica- 
tion.     We,  by  imputation,  through  the  instrumentality  of  faith. 

3d.  As  to  the  nature  and  office  of  faith.  We  say  that  it  is 
the  instrument;  they  the  beginning  and  root  of  justification. 

4th.  They  say  that  justification  is  progressive. 

5th.  That  it  may  be  lost  by  mortal  sin  and  regained  and 
increased  through  the  sacrament  of  Penance,  and  completed  in 
Purgatory. — See  above,  Chapter  XXXIL,  on  "Repentance  and 
Penance. ' 


612  JUSTIFICATION. 

34.  What  are  the  leading  arguments  against  the  Romanist  view 
on  this  subject  ? 

1st.  This  whole  doctrine  is  confused.  (1.)  It  confounds 
Tinder  one  definition  two  matters  entirely  distinct,  namely, 
the  forensic  remission  of  the  condemnation  due  to  sin  with 
the  washing  away  of  inherent  sin,  and  the  introduction  to  a 
state  of  covenant  favor  with  God  with  the  infusion  of  inherent 
grace.  (2.)  It  renders  no  sensible  account  as  to  the  manner  in 
which  the  merit  of  Christ  propitiates  divine  justice. 

2d.  Their  definition  is  refuted  by  all  the  evidence  above 
exhibited,  that  the  terms  "justification"  and  "righteousness" 
are  used  in  Scripture  in  a  forensic  sense. 

3d.  Their  view,  by  making  our  inherent  grace  wrought  in 
us  by  the  Holy  Ghost  for  Christ's  sake  the  ground  of  our  ac- 
ceptance with  God,  subverts  the  whole  gospel.  It  is  of  the 
very  essence  of  the  gospel  that  the  ground  of  our  acceptance 
with  the  Father  is  the  mediatorial  work  of  the  Son,  who  is  for 
us  the  end  of  the  law  for  righteousness,  and  not  our  own 
graces. 

4th.  Their  view  of  the  merit  of  works  performed  by  divine 
grace  after  baptism  is  inconsistent  with  what  Scripture  teaches 
and  the  Romish  Church  itself  teaches  as  to  original  sin  and 
guilt,  and  as  to  the  essential  graciousness  of  the  salvation 
wrought  by  Christ.  Thomas  Aquinas  himself  ("Summa.,"  Q. 
114,  Art.  5)  says,  "If  grace  be  considered  in  the  sense  of  a 
gratuitous  gift,  all  merit  is  excluded  by  grace."  Therefore  the 
entire  system  of  Papist  justification  falls. 

5th.  It  is  legal  in  its  spirit  and  method,  and  consequently 
induces  either  spiritual  pride  or  despair,  but  never  can  nourish 
true  evangelical  assurance  at  once  humble  and  confident. 

6th.  The  Scriptures  declare  that  on  the  ground  of  the  pro- 
pitiation of  Christ  God  justifies  the  believer  as  ungodly,  not 
as  sanctified.  It  certainly  could  not  require  an  atonement 
to  render  God  both  just  and  the  sanctifier  of  the  ungodly. 
Rom.  iv.  5. 

7th.  The  phrases  to  impute,  reckon,  count  sin  or  righteous- 
ness are  absolutely  consistent  only  with  a  forensic  interpreta- 
tion. To  impute  righteousness  without  works  in  the  forensic 
sense,  in  the  4th  chapter  of  Romans,  is  reasonable.  To  impute 
inherent  grace  without  works  is  nonsense. 

8th.  Their  definition  is  refuted  by  all  those  arguments  which 
establish  the  true  view  with  respect  to  the  nature  and  office  of 
justifying  faith. — See  above,  Questions  21-23. 


ROMISH  DOCTRINE.  513 


Authoritative  Statements. 

Komish  Doctrine.  —For  statement  of  the  nature,  ground,  and  means 
of  justification,  see  above,  under  Ch.  XXIX.  For  statement  of  Komish 
Doctrine  of  Good  Works  and  Works  of  Supererogation,  see  below,  under 
Ch.  XXXV.,  and  see  Doctrine  of  Penance,  above,  under  Ch.  XXX TT. 

"  Counc.  Trent,"  Sess.  6,  ch.  8. — "We  are  said  to  be  justified  by  faith, 
because  faith  is  the  beginning  of  human  salvation,  the  foundation  and 
the  root  of  all  justification."  lb.,  can.  23. — "If  any  one  saith  that  a 
man  once  justified  can  sin  no  more  nor  lose  grace,  and  therefore  he  that 
falls  and  sins  was  never  truly  justified;  or  on  the  other  hand,  that  he  is 
able  during  his  whole  life  to  avoid  all  sins,  even  those  that  are  venial, 
except  by  a  special  privilege  from  God,  as  the  church  holds  in  regard  of 
the  Blessed  Virgin,  let  him  be  accursed."  Can.  24. — "If  any  one  say 
that  righteousness  received  is  not  preserved  and  also  increased  before 
God  through  good  works ;  but  that  the  said  works  are  merely  the  fruits 
and  signs  of  justification  obtained,  but  not  a  cause  of  the  increase  thereof; 
let  him  be  accursed. "  Can.  29. — "If  any  one  saith  that  he,  who  has  fallen 
after  baptism,  is  not  able  by  the  grace  of  God  to  rise  again;  or,  that  he 
is  able  indeed  to  recover  the  righteousness  which  he  has  lost,  but  by 
faith  alone,  without  the  sacrament  of  penance  ....  let  him  be 
accursed."  Can.  30. — "If  any  one  saith,  that,  after  the  grace  of  Justifi- 
cation has  been  received,  to  every  penitent  sinner  the  guilt  is  remitted 
and  the  debt  of  eternal  punishment  is  blotted  out  in  such  wise,  that  there 
remains  not  any  debt  of  temporal  punishment  to  be  discharged  either  in 
this  world,  or  in  the  next  in  Purgatory,  before  he  can  enter  the  kingdom 
of  heaven;  let  him  be  accursed."  Can.  32. — "If  any  one  saith,  that  the 
good  works  of  one  that  is  justified  are  in  such  manner  the  gifts  of  God, 
as  that  they  are  not  also  the  good  merits  of  him  that  is  justified;  or  that 
the  justified  man,  by  the  good  works  which  he  performs  through  the 
grace  of  God  and  the  merit  of  Jesus  Christ,  whose  living  member  he  is, 
does  not  truly  merit  increase  of  grace,  eternal  life,  and  the  attainment 
of  eternal  life  if  he  die  in  grace,  and  also  an  increase  of  glory;  let  him 
be  accursed." 

Bellarmxn,  "De  Justificatione,"  5,  1. — "The  common  opinion  of  all 
Catholics  holds  that  all  the  good  works  of  justified  persons  are  truly  and 
properly  meritorious,  and  deserving  not  merely  of  a  reward  of  some  sort, 
but  of  eternal  life  itself.  4,  7. — We  say  that  good  works  are  necessary  to 
a  justified  man  in  order  to  his  salvation,  not  only  in  the  way  of  being 
present,  but  also  in  the  way  of  efficiency,  since  they  effect  salvation,  and 
faith  without  them  does  not  effect  it.  lb.  5,  5. — The  merits  of  justified 
persons  do  not  stand  opposed  to  the  merits  of  Christ,  but  they  spring 
from  these,  and  whatever  praise  those  merits  of  the  justified  have, 
redounds  entire  to  the  praise  of  the  merits  of  Christ. " 

Lutheran  Doctrine. — "Apologia  Cotifessianis." — "To  justify  in  this 
place  (Rom.  v.  1),  signifies  in  a  forensic  sense  to  absolve  an  accused  per- 
son and  x>ronounce  him  righteous,  but  on  account  of  another's  righteous- 
ness, i.  e.,  of  Christ;  which  other's  righteousness  is  made  over  to  us 
through  faith." 

"Formula  Concordice "  (Hase  Ed.),  p.  685. — "The  term  justification  in 
this  transaction  means  to  pronounce  righteous,  to  absolve  from  sins,  and 
from  the  eternal  punishment  of  sinners,  on  account  of  the  righteousness 
of  Christ,  which  is  imputed  by  God  to  faith."  lb.  p.  684. — "Man  a 
sinner  may  be  justified  before  God  .  .  without  any  merits  or  worthi- 
ness of  ours,  and  apart  from  any  works,  preceding,  accompanying,  or 

33 


514  JUSTIFICA  TIOM. 

following,  out  of  mere  grace."  lb.  p.  584. — "We  confess  that  fait'*  alone 
is  that  means  and  instrument  by  which  we  apprehend  Christ  our  Saviour, 
and  in  Christ  of  that  righteousness,  which  can  stand  the  judgment  oJ 
God."  lb.  p.  689. — "  Neither  repentance,  nor  love,  nor  any  other  virtue, 
but  faith  alone,  is  the  single  means  and  instrument  by  which  we  are  able 
to  apprehend  and  accept  the  grace  of  God,  the  merit  of  Christ,  and  the 
remission  of  sins." 

Reformed  Doctrine. 

"Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,"  Ch.  11. 

"Heidelberg  Gat.,"  Qnes.  60. — "Nevertheless  I  may  now  embrace  all 
these  benefits  with  a  true  boldness  of  mind;  without  any  merit  of  mine, 
of  the  mere  mercy  of  God,  the  perfect  satisfaction,  righteousness,  and 
holiness  of  Christ  is  imputed  and  given  to  me,  as  if  I  had  myself  com- 
mitted no  sin,  nor  incurred  any  stain ;  yea,  as  if  I  had  myself  perfectly 
performed  that  obedience  which  Christ  performed  for  me. " 

Remonstrant  Doctrine. — Limborch,  "Christ.  Theol,"  6,  4,22. — "Let 
it  be  understood  that,  when  we  say  we  are  justified  by  faith,  we  do  not 
exclude  works,  which  faith  requires,  and  as  a  fruitful  mother  produces, 
but  we  include  them  .  .  .  nor  by  faith  is  a  bare  faith  to  be  under- 
stood, as  contradistinguished  from  the  works  which  faith  produces,  but 
together  with  the  faith,  all  that  obedience  which  God  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment appoints,  and  which  is  supplied  by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ.  .  .  . 
31. — But  faith  is  a  condition  in  us  and  is  required  of  us  in  order  that  we 
may  obtain  justification.  It  is  therefore  an  act  which,  although  viewed 
in  itself  it  is  by  no  means  perfect,  but  in  many  respects  defective,  is  yet 
received  as  full  and  perfect  by  God  graciously  and  freely,  and  on  account 
of  it  God  graciously  bestows  remission  of  sins  and  the  reward  of  eternal 
life.  .  .  29. — The  object  of  faith  (justifying)  we  declare  to  be  Jesus 
Christ  entire,  as  prophet,  priest,  and  king;  not  only  his  propitiation,  but 
his  precepts,  promises,  and.  threatenings;  by  it  therefore  we  embrace  the 
entire  Christ,  his  word,  and  all  his  saving  benefits." 

Soctnian  Doctrine. — "Racovian  Catechism"  Sec.  5,  ch.  9. — "The 
faith  which  is  by  itself  followed  by  salvation,  is  such  an  assent  to  the 
doctrine  of  Christ  that  we  apply  it  to  its  proper  object;  that  is,  that  we 
trust  in  God  through  Christ,  and  give  ourselves  up  wholly  to  obey  his 
will,  whereby  we  obtain  his  promises If  piety  and  obedi- 
ence, when  life  is  continued  after  the  acknowledgment  of  Christ,  be 
required  as  indispensable  to  salvation,  it  is  necessary  that  the  faith  to 
which  alone  and  in  reality  salvation  is  ascribed,  should  comprehend  obe 
dience.  .  .  lb.  ch.  11. — Justification  is,  when  God  regards  us  as  just, 
or  so  deals  with  us  as  if  we  were  altogether  just  and  innocent.  This  he 
does  in  the  New  Covenant,  in  forgiving  our  sins  and  conferring  upon  us 
eternal  life." 


CHAPTER  XXXIV. 

ADOPTION,  AND  THE  ORDER  OF  GRACE  IN  THE  APPLICATION  OF 

REDEMPTION,   IN  THE  SEVERAL  PARTS  OF  JUSTIFICATION, 

REGENERATION,  AND  SANCTIFICATION. 

1.  To  what  classes  of  creatures  is  the  term  "sons"  or  "children 
of  God"  applied  in  tJie  Scriptures,  and  on  ivhat  grounds  is  that 
application  made? 

1st.  In  the  singular  it  is  applied,  in  a  supreme  and  incom- 
municable sense,  to  the  Second  Person  of  the  Trinity  alone. 

2d.  In  the  plural,  to  angels,  (1)  because  they  are  God's 
favored  creatures,  (2)  because  as  noly  intelligences  they  are 
like  him. — Job  i.  6 ;  xxxviii.  7. 

3d.  To  human  magistrates,  because  they  possess  authority 
delegated  from  God,  and  in  that  respect  resemble  him. — Ps. 
lxxxii.  6. 

4th.  To  good  men  as  the  subjects  of  a  divine  adoption. 

This  adoption,  and  the  consequent  sonship  it  confers  is  two- 
fold, (1)  general  and  external,  Ex.  iv.  22;  Rom.  ix.  4;  (2)  spe- 
cial, spiritual  and  immortal. — Gal.  iv.  4,  5 ;  Eph.  i.  4-6. 

2.  What  is  the  Adoption  of  which  believers  are  the  subjects  in 
Christ;  and  what  relation  does  the  conception  which  this  word  re- 
presents in  Scripture  sustain  to  those  represented  by  tJie  terms  jus- 
tification, regeneration,  and  sanctijication? 

Turretin  makes  adoption  a  constituent  part  of  justification. 
He  says  that  in  execution  of  the  covenant  of  grace  God  sover- 
eignly imputes  to  the  elect,  upon  their  exercise  of  faith,  the 
righteousness  of  Christ,  which  was  the  fulfilling  of  the  whole 
law,  precept  as  well  as  penalty,  and  therefore  the  legal  ground, 
under  the  covenant  of  works,  for  securing  to  his  people  both 
remission  of  the  penalty  and  a  legal  right  to  all  the  promises 
conditioned  upon  obedience.  Upon  the  ground  of  this  sover- 
eign imputation  God  judicially  pronounces  the  law,  in  its 
federal  relations,  to  be  perfectly  satisfied  with  regard  to  them, 
i.  e.,  he  justifies  them,  which  involves  two  things,  1st,  the  re- 


516  ADOPTION. 

mission  of  the  penalty  due  to  their  sins,  2d,  the  endowing  them 
with  all  the  rights  and  relations  which  accrue  from  the  positive 
fulfilment  of  the  covenant  of  works  by  Christ  in  their  behalf. 
This  second  constituent  of  justification  he  calls  adoption,  which 
essentially  agrees  with  the  definition  of  adoption  given  in  our 
"Con.  Faith,"  Chapter  xii.;  "L.  Cat.,"  Q.  74;  "S.  Cat.,"  Q.  34. 
Turretin,  L.  16,  Q.  4  and  6. 

The  great  Amesius  (fl633),  in  his  "Medulla  Theologica," 
ch.  28,  represents  Adoption  as  a  new  grace  in  advance  of  jus- 
tification, and  not  an  element  in  it.  A  gracious  sentence  of 
God,  whereby  a  believer,  having  been  justified,  is  accepted  for 
Christ's  sake  into  the  relation  and  rights  of  sonship. 

It  appears,  however,  to  us  that  the  words  "Adoption"  and 
"Sonship,"  as  used  in  Scripture,  express  more  than  a  change 
of  relation,  and  that  they  are  more  adequately  conceived  of  as 
expressing  a  complex  view,  including  the  change  of  nature  to- 
gether with  the  change  of  relation,  and  setting  forth  the  new 
creature  in  his  new  relations. 

The  instant  a  sinner  is  united  to  Christ  in  the  exercise  of 
faith,  there  is  accomplished  in  him  simultaneously  and  insepa- 
rably, 1st,  a  total  change  of  relation  to  God,  and  to  the  law  as 
a  covenant;  and,  2d,  a  change  of  iniuard  condition  or  nature. 
The  change  of  relation  is  represented  by  justification;  the 
change  of  nature  is  represented  by  the  term  regeneration. 
Regeneration  is  an  act  of  God  originating  by  a  new  creation 
a  new  spiritual  life  in  the  heart  of  the  subject.  The  first  and 
instant  act  of  that  new  creature,  consequent  upon  his  regenera- 
tion, is  faith,  or  a  believing,  trusting  embrace  of  the  person 
and  work  of  Christ.  Upon  the  exercise  of  faith  by  the  regene- 
rated subject,  justification  is  the  instant  act  of  God,  on  the 
ground  of  that  perfect  righteousness  which  the  sinner's  faith 
has  apprehended,  declaring  him  to  be  free  from  all  condem- 
nation and  to  have  a  legal  right  to  the  relations  and  benefits 
secured  by  the  covenant  which  Christ  has  fulfilled  in  his  behalf. 
Sanctification  is  the  progressive  growth  toward  the  perfected 
maturity  of  that  new  life  which  was  implanted  in  regenera- 
tion. Adoption  presents  the  new  creature  in  his  new  relation ; 
his  new  relations  entered  upon  with  a  congenial  heart,  and 
his  new  life  developing  in  a  congenial  home,  and  surrounded 
with  those  relations  which  foster  its  growth,  and  crown  it 
with  blessedness.  Justification  is  wholly  forensic,  and  con- 
cerns only  relations,  immunities,  and  rights.  Regeneration 
and  sanctifieation  are  wholly  spiritual  and  moral,  and  concern 
only  inherent  qualities  and  states.  Adoption  comprehends  the 
complex  condition  of  the  believer  as  at  once  the  subject  of 
both. 


THE    "OKDO    SALUTIS."  517 

3d.    What  is  the  order  of  grace  in  the  application  of  Redemption  ? 

I.  The  two  principles  which  fundamentally  characterize 
Protestant  Soteriology  are — 1st.  The  clear  distinction  between 
the  change  of  relation  signalized  by  justification,  and  the 
change  of  character  signalized  by  regeneration  and  sanctitica- 
tion.  2d.  That  the  change  of  relation,  the  remission  of  penalty, 
and  the  restoration  to  favor  involved  in  justification,  neces- 
sarily precedes,  and  renders  possible,  the  real  moral  change  ex- 
pressed by  regeneration  and  sanctification.  The  continuance 
of  judicial  condemnation  precludes  the  exercise  of  grace.  Re- 
mission of  punishment  must  precede  the  work  of  the  Spirit. 
We  are  pardoned  in  order  that  we  may  be  good,  never  made 
good  in  order  that  we  may  be  pardoned. 

"It  is  evident  that  God  must  himself  already  have  been 
secretly  favorable  and  gracious  to  a  man,  and  must  already 
have  pardoned  him  forum  divinum,  for  the  sake  of  Christ  and 
his  relation  to  human  nature,  to  be  able  to  bestow  upon  him 
the  grace  of  regeneration.  In  fact  viewed  as  actus  Dei  forensis 
there  was  of  necessity  that  it  should  be  regarded  as  existing 
prior  to  man's  consciousness  of  it,  nay  prior  to  faith." — Dr.  J. 
A.  Dorner's  "  Hist.  Prot.  Theo.,"  Vol.  II.,  pp.  156,  160. 

II.  Hence  the  apparent  circle  in  the  order  of  grace.  The 
righteousness  of  Christ  is  said  to  be  imputed  to  the  believer, 
and  justification  to  be  through  faith.  Yet  faith  is  an  act  of  a 
soul  already  regenerated,  and  regeneration  is  possible  only  to 
a  soul  to  whom  God  is  reconciled  by  the  application  of  Christ's 
satisfaction. 

Thus  the  satisfaction  and  merit  of  Christ  is  the  antecedent 
cause  of  regeneration,  and  on  the  other  hand  the  participation 
of  the  believer  in  the  satisfaction  and  merit  of  Christ  (his  jus- 
tification) is  conditioned  on  his  faith,  which  is  the  effect  of  his 
regeneration.  We  must  have  part  in  Christ  so  far  forth  as 
to  be  regenerated,  in  order  to  have  part  in  him  so  far  forth  as  to 
be  justified. 

This  is  not  a  question  of  order  in  time,  because  regene- 
ration and  justification  are  gracious  acts  of  God  absolutely 
synchronous.  The  question  is  purely  as  to  the  true  order  of 
causation;  Is  the  righteousness  of  Christ  imputed  to  us  that 
we  may  believe,  or  is  it  imputed  to  us  because  we  believe?  Is 
justification  an  analytic  judgment,  that  the  man  is  justified  as 
a  believer  though  a  sinner*  or  is  it  a  synthetic  judgment,  that 
this  sinner  is  justified  for  Christ's  sake  ? 

III.  The  solution  is  to  be  sought  in  the  fact  that  Christ  im- 
petrated  the  application  of  his  salvation  to  his  "own,"  and  all 
the  means,  conditions,  and  stages  thereof,  and  that  this  was 


518  ADOPTION. 

done  in  pursuance  of  a  covenant  engagement  with  the  Fathei, 
which  provided  for  the  application  of  redemption  to  specifio 
persons  at  certain  times  and  under  certain  conditions.  The 
relation  from  birth  of  an  elect  person  to  Adam,  and  to  sin  and 
its  condemnation,  is  precisely  the  same  with  that  of  all  his  fel- 
low-men. But  his  relation  to  the  satisfaction  and  merits  of 
Christ,  and  to  the  graces  they  impetrate,  is  analogous  to  that 
of  an  heir  to  an  inheritance  secured  to  him  by  will.  As  long  as 
he  is  under  age  the  will  secures  the  inchoate  right  of  the  heir 
cfe  jure.  It  provides  for  his  education  at  the  expense  of  the 
estate  in  preparation  for  his  inheritance.  It  determines  the 
previous  instalments  of  his  patrimony  to  be  given  him  by  his 
trustees.  It  determines  in  some  sense  his  present  status  as  a 
prospective  heir.  It  determines  the  precise  time  and  condi- 
tions of  his  being  inducted  into  absolute  possession.  He  pos- 
sesses certain  rights  and  enjoys  certain  benefits  from  the  first. 
But  he  has  absolute  rights  and  powers  of  ownership  only  when 
he  reaches  the  period  and  fulfils  the  conditions  prescribed  there- 
for in  the  will.  Thus  the  merits  of  Christ  are  imputed  to  the 
elect  heir  from  his  birth  so  far  forth  as  they  constitute  the  basis 
of  the  gracious  dealing  provided  for  him  as  preparatory  to  his 
full  possession. 

Justification  is  assigned  by  Protestant  theologians  to  that 
final  mental  act  of  God  as  Judge  whereby  he  declares  the  heir 
in  full  possession  of  the  rights  of  his  inheritance,  henceforth  to 
be  recognized  and  treated  as  the  heir  in  possession,  although 
the  actual  consummation  of  that  possession  is  not  effected  until 
the  resurrection.  Christ  and  his  righteousness  are  not  given 
to  the  believer  because  of  faith.  Faith  is  the  conscious  trust 
ing  receiving  of  that  which  is  already  given.  Our  Catechism, 
Ques.  33,  says,  "Justification  is  an  act  of  God's  free  grace, 
wherein  he  pardoneth  all  our  sins,  and  accepteth  us  as  right- 
eous in  his  sight  only  for  the  righteousness  of  Christ  (1)  im 
puted  to  us,  and  (2)  received  by  faith  alone." 

Regeneration  and  consequently  faith  are  wrought  in  us  for 
Christ's  sake  and  as  the  result  conditioned  on  a  previous  impu- 
tation of  his  righteousness  to  that  end.  Justification  super- 
venes upon  faith,  and  implies  such  an  imputation  of  Christ's 
righteousness  as  effects  a  radical  and  permanent  change  of  re- 
lationship to  the  law  as  a  condition  of  life. 

4.  What  is  represented  in  Scripture  as  involved  in  heing  a 
child  of  God  by  this  adoption  ? 

1st.  Derivation  of  nature  from  God. — John  i.  13;  James  i 
18;  1  John  v.  18. 


THE    BENEFITS    OF    ADOPTION.  519 

2d.  Being  born  again  in  the  image  of  God,  bearing  his  like- 
ness.—Rom.  viii.  29;  2  Cor.  iii.  18;  Col.  iii.  10;  2  Pet.  i.  4. 

3d.  Bearing  his  name. — 1  John  iii.  1 ;  Eev.  ii.  17 ;  iii.  12. 

4th.  Being  the  objects  of  his  peculiar  love. — John  xvii.  23, 
Rom.  v.  5-8;  Titus  iii.  4;  1  John  iv.  7-11. 

5th.  The  indwelling  of  the  Spirit  of  his  Son  (Gal.  iv.  5,  6), 
who  forms  in  us  a  filial  spirit,  or  a  spirit  becoming  the  children 
of  God,  obedient,  1  Pet.  i.  14;  2  John  6;  free  from  sense  of  guilt, 
legal  bondage,  fear  of  death,  Rom;  viii.  15,  21;  2  Cor.  iii.  17; 
Gal.  v.  1 ;  Heb.  ii.  15 ;  1  John  v.  14;  and  elevated  with  a  holy  bold- 
ness and  royal  dignity,  Heb.  x.  19,  22 ;  1  Pet.  ii.  9 ;  iv.  14. 

6th.  Present  protection,  consolations,  and  abundant  provi- 
sions.— Ps.  cxxv.  2;  Isa.  lxvi.  13;  Luke  xii.  27-32;  John  xiv.  18; 
1  Cor.  iii.  21,  23;  2  Cor.  i.  4. 

7th.  Present  fatherly  chastisements  for  our  good,  includ- 
ing both  spiritual  and  temporal  afflictions. — Ps.  Ii.  11,  12 ;  Heb. 
xii.  5-11. 

8th.  The  certain  inheritance  of  the  riches  of  our  Father's 
glory,  as  heirs  with  God  and  joint  heirs  with  Christ,  Rom.  viii. 
17;  James  ii.  5;  1  Pet.  i.  4;  iii.  7;  including  the  exaltation  of 
our  bodies  to  fellowship  with  him. — Rom.  viii.  23;  Phil.  iii.  21. 

5.  What  relation  do  the  three  persons  of  the  Trinity  sustain  to 
this  adoption,  and  into  what  relation  does  it  introduce  us  to  each  of 
tJiem  severally  ? 

This  adoption  proceeds  according  to  the  eternal  purpose  of 
the  Father,  upon  the  merits  of  the  Son,  and  by  the  efficient 
agency  of  the  Holy  Ghost. — John  i.  12,  13;  Gal.  iv.  5,  6;  Titus 
iii.  5,  6.  By  it  God  the  Father  is  made  our  Father.  The  incar- 
nate God-man  is  made  our  elder  brother,  and  we  are  made — (1) 
like  him ;  (2)  intimately  associated  with  him  in  community  of 
life,  standing,  relations,  and  privileges;  (3)  joint  heirs  with  him 
of  his  glory. — Rom.  viii.  17,  29 ;  Heb.  ii.  17 ;  iv.  15.  The  Holy 
Ghost  is  our  indweller,  teacher,  guide,  advocate,  comforter,  and 
sanctifier.  All  believers,  being  subjects  of  the  same  adoption, 
are  brethren. — Eph.  iii.  6 ;  1  John  iii.  14 ;  v.  1. 


CHAPTER   XXXV. 

SANCTIFICATION. 

1.  What  sense  do  the  words  ay  to?,  Jiohj  and  dyid&iv,  to  sano 
tify,  bear  in  the  Scriptures  ? 

The  verb  dyid&iv  is  used  in  two  distinct  senses  in  the  New 
Testament: 

1st.  To  make  clean  physically,  or  morally.  (1.)  Ceremonial 
purification. — Heb.  ix.  13.  (2.)  To  render  clean  in  a  moral 
sense. — 1  Cor.  vi.  11;  Heb.  xiii.  12.  Hence  the  phrase  "them 
that  are  sanctified"  is  convertable  with  believers. — 1  Cor.  i.  2. 

2d.  To  set  apart  from  a  common  to  a  sacred  use,  to  devote, 
(1)  spoken  of  things,  Matt,  xxiii.  17;  (2)  spoken  of  persons, 
John  x.  36;  (3)  to  regard  and  venerate  as  holy,  Matt.  vi.  9; 
1  Pet  iii.  15. 

"Ayioz,  as  an  adjective,  pure,  holy,  as  a  noun,  saint,  is  also 
used  in  two  distinct  senses,  corresponding  to  those  of  the  verb. 

1st.  Pure,  clean;  (1)  ceremonially,  (2)  morally,  Eph.  i.  4, 
(3)  as  a  noun,  saints,  sanctified  ones,  Rom.  i.  7;  viii.  27. 

2d.  Consecrated,  devoted. — Matt.  iv.  5 ;  Acts  vi.  13 ;  xxi.  28 ; 
Heb.  ix.  3.  This  word  is  also  used  in  ascriptions  of  praise  to 
God. — John  xvii.  11;  Rev.  iv.  8. 

2.  What  are  tJw  different  views  entertained  as  to  the  nature  of 
8anctiJication  ? 

1st.  Pelagians  denying  original  sin  and  the  moral  inability  of 
man,  and  holding  that  sin  can  be  predicated  only  of  acts  of  the 
will,  and  not  of  inherent  states  or  dispositions,  consequently 
regard  sanetification  as  nothing  more  than  a  moral  reformation 
of  life  and  habits,  wrought  under  the  influence  of  the  truth  in 
the  natural  strength  of  the  sinner  himself. 

2d.  The  advocates  of  the  "exercise  scheme"  hold  that  we  can 
find  nothing  in  the  soul  other  than  the  agent  and  his  exercises. 
Regeneration,  therefore,  is  nothing  more  than  the  cessation  from 
a  series  of  unholy,  and  the  inauguration  of  a  series  of  holy 


DOCTRINE    STATED.  521 

exercises;  and  sanctification  the  maintenance  of  these  holy 
exercises.  One  party,  represented  by  Dr.  Emmons,  say  that 
God  immediately  effects  these  holy  exercises.  Another  party, 
represented  by  Dr.  Taylor,  of  New  Haven,  held  that  the  man 
himself  determines  the  character  of  his  own  exercises  by  choos- 
ing God  as  his  chief  good;  the  Holy  Spirit  in  some  unexplained 
way  assisting. — See  above,  Chap.  XXIX.,  Questions  5  and  6. 

3d.  Many  members  of  the  Church  of  England,  as  distin- 
guished from  the  evangelical  party,  hold  that  a  man  conform- 
ing to  the  church,  which  is  the  condition  of  the  Gospel  cove- 
nant, is  introduced  to  all  the  benefits  of  that  covenant,  and 
in  the  decent  performance  of  relative  duties  and  observance 
of  the  sacraments,  is  enabled  to  do  all  that  is  now  required 
of  him,  and  to  attain  to  all  the  moral  good  now  possible  or 
desirable. 

4th.  The  orthodox  doctrine  is  that  the  Holy  Ghost,  by  his 
constant  influences  upon  the  whole  soul  in  all  its  faculties, 
through  the  instrumentality  of  the  truth,  nourishes,  exercises, 
and  develops  those  holy  principles  and  dispositions  which  he 
implanted  in  the  new  birth,  until  by  a  constant  progress  all 
sinful  dispositions  being  mortified  and  extirpated,  and  all  holy 
dispositions  being  fully  matured,  the  subject  of  this  grace  is 
brought  immediately  upon  death  to  the  measure  of  the  stature 
of  perfect  manhood  in  Christ. 

"Con.  Faith,"  Chap.  xiiL;  "L.  Cat.,"  Question  75;  "S.  Cat.," 
Question  35. 

3.  How  can  it  be  shoivn  that  sanctification  involves  more  than 
mere  reformation  ? 

See  above,  Chap.  XXIX.,  Question  12. 

4.  Hoio  may  it  be  shown  tJuxt  it  involves  more  than  tJie  produc- 
tion of  lioly  exercises  ? 

See  above,  Chap.  XXIX.,  Questions  7-10. 

Besides  the  arguments  presented  in  the  chapter  above  re- 
ferred to,  this  truth  is  established  by  the  evidence  of  those 
passages  of  Scripture  which  distinguish  between  the  change 
Avrought  in  the  heart  and  the  effects  of  that  change  in  the 
actions. — Matt.  xii.  33-35 ;  Luke  vi.  43-45. 

5.  What  relation  does  sanctification  sustain  to  regeneration  ? 

Regeneration  is  the  creative  act  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  implant- 
ing a  new  principle  of  spiritual  life  in  the  soul.  Conversion  is 
the  first  exercise  of  that  new  gracious  principle,  in  the  spontane- 
ous turning  of  the  new-born  sinner  to  God.     Sanctification  u 


522  SANCTIFICA  TION. 

the  sustaining  and  developing  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  bring- 
ing all  the  faculties  of  the  soul  more  and  more  perfectly  under  the 
purifying  and  regulating  influence  of  the  implanted  principle 
of  spiritual  life. 

6.  What  is  the  relation  which  justification  and  sanctijication 
mstain  to  each  other  ? 

In  the  order  of  nature,  regeneration  precedes  justification, 
although  as  to  time  they  are  always  necessarily  contemporane- 
cus.  The  instant  God  regenerates  a  sinner  he  acts  faith  in 
Christ.  The  instant  he  acts  faith  in  Christ  he  is  justified,  and 
sanctification,  which  is  the  work  of  carrying  on  and  perfecting 
that  which  is  begun  in  regeneration,  is  accomplished  under  the 
conditions  of  those  new  relations  into  which  he  is  introduced 
by  justification.  In  justification  we  are  delivered  from  all  the 
penal  consequences  of  sin,  and  brought  into  such  a  state  of 
reconciliation  with  God,  and  communion  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
that  we  are  emancipated  from  the  bondage  of  legal  fear,  and 
endued  with  that  spirit  of  filial  confidence  and  love  which  is 
the  essential  principle  of  all  acceptable  obedience.  Our  justifi- 
cation, moreover,  proceeds  on  the  ground  of  our  federal  union 
with  Christ  by  faith,  which  is  the  basis  of  that  vital  and  spirit- 
ual union  of  the  soul  with  him  from  whom  our  sanctification 
flows. — See  above,  Chap.  XXXI.,  Question  3. 

7.  How  can  it  be  shoion  that  this  work  extends  to  the  whole 
man,  the  understanding,  wiU,  and  affections  ? 

The  soul  is  a  unit,  the  same  single  agent  alike,  thinking, 
feeling,  and  willing.  A  man  can  not  love  that  loveliness  which 
he  does  not  perceive,  nor  can  he  perceive  that  beauty,  whether 
moral  or  natural,  which  is  uncongenial  to  his  own  heart.  His 
whole  nature  is  morally  depraved,  1st,  blind  or  insensible  to 
spiritual  beauty;  2d,  averse,  in  the  reigning  dispositions  of  the 
will,  to  moral  right,  and  therefore  disobedient.  The  order  in 
which  the  faculties  act  is  as  follows :  The  intellect  perceives  the 
qualities  of  the  object  concerning  which  the  mind  is  engaged; 
the  heart  loves  those  qualities  which  are  congenial  to  it;  the 
will  chooses  that  which  is  loved. 

This  is  proved,  1st,  by  experience.  As  the  heart  becomes 
more  depraved  the  mind  becomes  more  insensible  to  spiritua1 
light.  On  the  other  hand,  a.s  the  eyes  behold  more  and  more 
clearly  the  beauty  of  the  trivth,  the  more  lively  become  the 
affections,  and  the  more  obedient  the  will.  2d.  From  the  tes- 
timony of  Scripture.  By  nature  the  whole  man  is  depraved. 
The  understanding  darkened,  as  well  as  the  affections  and  will 
perverted. — Eph.  iv.  18. 


THE    AGENCY   OE    THE    TRUTH.  523 

If  this  be  so,  it  is  evident  that  sanctification  must  also  be 
effected  throughout  the  entire  nature.  1st.  From  the  necessity 
of  the  case.  2d.  From  the  testimony  of  Scripture. — Rom.  vi. 
13;  2  Cor.  iv.  6;  Eph.  i.  18;  Col.  iii.  10;  1  Thess.  v.  23;  1  John 
iv.  7. 

8.  In  what  sense  is  the  hody  saneti/led  ? 

1st  As  consecrated,  (1)  as  being  the  temple  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  1  Cor.  vi.  19;  (2)  hence  as  being  a  member  of  Christ. — 
1  Cor.  vi.  15.  2d.  As  sanctified,  since  they  are  integral  parts 
of  our  persons,  their  instincts  and  appetites  act  immediately 
upon  the  passions  of  our  souls,  and  consequently  these  must  be 
brought  subject  to  the  control  of  the  sanctified  soul,  and  all  its 
members,  as  organs  of  the  soul,  made  instruments  of  righteous- 
ness unto  God. — Rom.  vi.  13;  1  Thess.  iv.  4.  3d.  It  will  be 
made  like  Christ's  glorified  body. — 1  Cor.  xv.  44;  Phil.  iii.  21. 

9.  To  whom  is  the  ivork  of  sanctification  referred  in  Scripture  ? 

1st.  To  the  Father.— 1  Thess.  vi.  23;  Heb.  xiii.  21.  2d.  To 
the  Son.— Eph.  v.  25,  26 ;  Titus  ii.  14.  3d.  To  the  Holy  Ghost.— 
1  Cor.  vi.  11 ;  2  Thess.  ii.  13. 

In  all  external  actions  the  three  Persons  of  the  Trinity  are 
always  represented  as  concurring,  the  Father  working  through 
the  Son  and  Spirit,  and  the  Son  through  the  Spirit.  Hence  the 
work  of  sanctification  is  with  special  prominence  attributed  to 
the  Holy  Spirit,  since  he  is  the  immediate  agent  therein,  and 
since  this  is  his  special  office  work  in  the  plan  of  redemption. 

10.  What  do  the  Scriptures  teach  as  to  tlie  agency  of  the  truth 
in  the  ivork  of  sanctification  ? 

The  whole  process  of  sanctification  consists  in  the  develop- 
ment and  confirmation  of  the  new  principle  of  spiritual  life  im- 
planted in  the  soul  in  regeneration,  conducted  b}r  the  Holy  Ghost 
in  perfect  conformity  to,  and  through  the  operation  of  the  laws 
and  habits  of  action  natural  to  the  soul  as  an  intelligent,  moral 
and  free  agent.  Like  the  natural  faculties  both  of  body  and 
mind,  and  the  natural  habits  which  modify  the  actions  of  those 
faculties,  so  Christian  graces,  or  spiritual  habits,  are  developed 
by  exercise;  the  truths  of  the  gospel  "being  the  objects  upon 
which  these  graces  act,  and  by  which  they  are  both  excited  and 
directed.  Thus  the  divine  loveliness  of  God  presented  in  the 
truth,  which  is  his  image,  is  the  object  of  our  complacent  love ; 
his  goodness  of  our  gratitude;  his  promises  of  our  trust;  his 
judgments  of  our  wholesome  awe,  and  his  commandments 
variously  exercise  us  in  the  thousand  forms  of  filial  obedience- 
John  xvii.  19;  1  Pet.  L  22;  ii.  2;  2  Pet.  i.  4;  James  i.  18. 


624  SANC  TJFICA  T/OAT. 

11.  What  efficiency  do  the  Scriptures  ascribe  in  this  work  tc 
the  Sacraments  ? 

There  are  three  views  entertained  on  this  subject  by  theo- 
logians— 

1st.  The  lowest  view  is,  that  the  sacraments  simply,  as 
symbols,  present  the  truth  in  a  lively  manner  to  the  eye,  and 
are  effective  thus  only  as  a  form  of  presenting  the  gospel 
objectively. 

2d.  The  opinion  occupying  the  opposite  extreme  is,  that 
they,  of  their  own  proper  efficiency,  convey  sanctifying  grace  ex 
opere  operato,  "because  they  convey  grace  by  the  virtue  of  the 
sacramental  action  itself,  instituted  by  God  for  this  very  end, 
and  not  through  the  merit  either  of  the  agent  (priest)  or  the 
receiver." — Bellarmin,  "  De  Sac,"  2,  1. 

3d.  The  true  view  is,  "that  the  sacraments  are  efficacious 
means  of  grace,  not  merely  exhibiting  but  actually  conferring 
upon  those  who  worthily  receive  them  the  benefits  which  they 
represent;"  yet  this  efficacy  does  not  reside  properly  in  them, 
but  accompanies  their  proper  use  in  virtue  of  the  divine  insti- 
tution and  promise,  through  the  accompanying  agency  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  as  suspended  upon  the  exercise  of  faith  upon 
the  part  of  the  recipient,  which  faith  is  at  once  the  condition 
and  the  instrument  of  the  reception  of  the  benefit. — Matt.  hi.  11; 
Acts  ii.  41;  x.  47;  Rom.  vL  3;  1  Cor.  xii.  13;  Titus  iii.  5;  1  Pet. 
iii.  21. 

12.  What  office  do  tlie  Scriptures  ascribe  to  faith  in  sanctiff- 
cation  ? 

Faith  is  the  first  grace  in  order  exercised  by  the  soul  conse- 
quent upon  regeneration,  and  the  root  of  all  other  graces  in 
principle. — Acts  xv.  9;  xxvi.  18.  It  is  instrumental  in  securing 
sanctification  therefore — 

1st.  By  securing  the  change  of  the  believer's  relation  to 
God  and  to  the  law,  as  a  condition  of  life  and  favor. — See  above, 
Question  6. 

2d.  By  securing  his  union  with  Christ. — 1  Cor.  xiii. ;  Gal. 
ii.  20;  Col.  iii.  3. 

3d.  It  is  sanctifying  in  its  own  nature,  since,  in  its  widest 
sense,  faith  is  that  spiritual  state  of  the  soul  in  which  it  holds 
living  active  communion  with  spiritual  truth.  "By  this  faith 
a  Christian  believeth  to  be  true,  whatsoever  is  revealed  in  the 
word,  for  the  authority  of  God  himself  speaking  therein;  and 
acteth  differently,  upon  that  which  every  particular  passage 
thereof  containeth;  yielding  obedience  to  the  commands,  trem 
bling  to  the  threatening*,  and  embracing  the  promises  of  God 


NO  DISTINCTION  BETWEEN  COUNSELS  AND  PRECEPTS.   525 

for  this  life,  and  that  which  is  to  come." — "  Conf.  Faith,"  ch. 
14,  §  2. 

13.  What,  according  to  Scripture,  is  necessary  to  constitute  a 
good  ivork  ? 

1st.  That  it  should  spring  from  a  right  motive,  i  c,  love 
for  God's  character,  regard  for  his  authority,  and  zeal  for  hia 
glory;  love  as  a  fruit  of  the  Spirit,  if  not  always  consciously 
present,  yet  reigning  as  a  permanent  and  controlling  principle 
in  the  soul. 

2d.  That  it  be  in  accordance  with  his  revealed  law. — Deut. 
xii.  32;  Isa.  i.  11,  12;  Col.  ii.  16-23. 

14.  What  is  the  Popish  doctrine  as  to  "  the  counsels "  of  Christy 
ivhich  are  not  included  in  the  positive  precepts  of  tlve  law  ? 

The  positive  commands  of  Christ  are  represented  as  binding 
on  all  classes  of  Christians  alike,  and  their  observance  necessary 
in  order  to  salvation.  His  counsels,  on  the  other  hand,  are 
binding  only  upon  those  who,  seeking  a  higher  degree  of  per- 
fection and  a  more  excellent  reward,  voluntarily  assume  them. 
These  are  such  as  celibacy,  voluntary  poverty,  etc.,  and  obedi- 
ence to  rule  (monastic). — Bellarmin,  "de  Monachis,"  Cap.  vii. 

The  wickedness  of  this  distinction  is  evident — 

1  st.  Because  Christ  demands  the  entire  consecration  of  every 
Christian :  after  we  have  done  all  we  are  only  unprofitable  ser- 
vants.    Works  of  supererogation,  therefore,  are  impossible. 

2d.  All  such  will  worship  is  declared  abhorrent  to  God. — Col. 
ii.  18-23;  1  Tim.  iv.  3. 

15.  WJiat  judgment  is  to  be  formed  of  the  good  ivories  of  unre- 
newed men? 

Unrenewed  men  retain  some  dispositions  and  affections  in 
themselves  relatively  good,  and  they  do  many  things  in  them- 
selves right,  and  according  to  the  letter  of  God's  law.     Yet — 

1st.  As  to  his  person,  every  unrenewed  man  is  under  God's 
wrath  and  curse,  and  consequently  can  do  nothing  pleasing  to 
him.  The  rebel  in  arms  is  in  evexy  thing  a  rebel  until  he  sub- 
mits and  returns  to  his  allegiance. 

2d.  Love  for  God  and  regard  to  his  authority  are  never  hia 
supreme  motive  in  any  of  his  acts.  Thus  while  many  of  his 
actions  are  civilly  good  as  respects  his  fellow-men,  none  of  them 
can  be  spiritually  good  as  it  respects  God.  There  is  an  obvious 
distinction  between  an  act  viewed  in  itself,  and  viewed  in  con- 
nection with  its  agent.  The  sinner,  previous  to  justification 
and  renewal,  is  a  rebel;  each  one  of  nis  acta  is  the  act  of  a 


62(>  SANCTIFICATION. 

rebel,  though  as  considered  in  itself  any  single  act  may  be 
either  good,  bad,  or  indifferent. 

16.  In  ivhat  sense  are  good  ivories  necessary  for  salvation? 

As  the  necessary  and  invariable  fruits  of  both  the  change 
of  relation  accomplished  in  justification,  and  of  the  change  of 
nature  accomplished  in  regeneration,  though  never  as  the 
meritorious  grounds  or  conditions  of  our  salvation. 

This  necessity  results,  1st,  from  the  holiness  of  God ;  2d,  from 
his  eternal  purpose,  Eph.  i.  4;  ii.  10;  3d,  from  the  design  and 
redemptive  efficacy  of  Christ's  death,  Eph.  v.  25-27;  4th,  from 
the  union  of  the  believer  with  Christ,  and  the  energy  of  his 
indwelling  Spirit,  John  xv.  5;  Gal.  v.  22;  5th,  from  the  very 
nature  of  faith,  which  first  leads  to  and  then  works  by  love, 
Gal.  v.  6;  6th,  from  the  command  of  God,  1  Thes.  iv.  6;  1  Pet. 
i.  15 ;  7th,  from  the  nature  of  heaven,  Rev.  xxi.  27. 

17.  What  is  the  theory  of  the  Antinomians  upon  this  subject  ? 

Antinomians  are,  as  their  name  signifies,  those  who  deny 
that  Christians  are  bound  to  obey  the  law.  They  argue  that, 
as  Christ  has  in  our  place  fulfilled  both  the  preceptive  and  the 
penal  departments  of  God's  law,  his  people  must  be  delivered 
from  all  obligation  to  observe  it,  either  as  a  rule  of  duty  or  as  a 
condition  of  salvation. — See  above,  Question  3,  Chap.  XXV. 

It  is  evident  that  all  systems  of  Perfectionism,  which  teach 
(as  the  Pelagian  and  Oberlin  theories)  that  men's  ability  to 
obey  is  the  measure  of  their  responsibility,  or  (as  the  Papal 
and  Arminian  theories)  that  God,  for  Christ's  sake,  has  gra- 
ciously reduced  his  demand  from  absolute  moral  perfection  to 
faith  and  evangelical  obedience,  are  essentially  Antinomian. 
Because  they  all  agree  in  teaching  that  Christians  in  this  life 
are  no  longer  under  obligations  to  fulfil  the  Adamic  law  of 
absolute  moral  perfection. 

Paul,  in  the  6th  chapter  of  Romans,  declares  that  this  damn- 
able heresy  was  charged  as  a  legitimate  consequent  upon  his 
doctrine  in  that  day.  He  not  only  repudiates  the  charge,  but, 
on  the  contrary,  affirms  that  free  justification  through  an  im- 
puted righteousness,  without  the  merits  of  works,  is  the  only 
Eossible  condition  in  which  the  sinner  can  learn  to  bring  forth 
oly  works  as  the  fruits  of  filial  love.  The  very  purpose  of 
Christ  was  to  redeem  to  himself  a  peculiar  people,  zealous  of 
good  works,  and  this  he  accomplished  by  delivering  them  from 
the  federal  bondage  of  the  law,  in  order  to  render  them  capable 
as  the  Lord's  freedmen  of  moral  conformity  to  it,  ever  increas- 
ingly in  this  life,  absolutely  in  the  life  to  come. 


"MERIT  OF  CONDIGNITY  AND  MERIT  OF  CONGRUITY."   527 

18.  What  are  the  different  senses  ivhich  have  been  applied  U  4M 
term  "merit"? 

It  has  been  technically  used  in  two  different  senses.  1st. 
Strictly,  to  designate  the  common  quality  of  all  services  to 
which  a  reward  is  due,  ex  justicia,  on  account  of  their  intrinsic 
value  and  dignity.  2d.  Improperly,  it  was  used  by  the  Fathers 
as  equivalent  to  that  which  results  in  or  attains  to  a  reward  or 
consequent,  without  specifying  the  ground  or  virtue  on  account 
of  which  it  is  secured. — Turretin,  L.  xvii.,  Qusestio  5. 

19.  What  distinction  does  the  Romish  Church  design  to  signal- 
ize by  the  terms  "merit  of  condignity"  and  the  " merit  of  congruity"  ? 

The  "  merit  of  condignity "  they  teach  attaches  only  to 
works  wrought  subsequently  to  regeneration  by  the  aid  of 
divine  grace,  and  is  that  degree  of  merit  that  intrinsically,  and 
in  the  way  of  equal  right,  not  by  mere  promise  or  covenant, 
deserves  the  reward  it  attains  at  God's  hands.  The  "merit  of 
congruity"  they  teach  attaches  to  those  good  dispositions  or 
works  which  a  man  may,  previously  to  regeneration,  realize 
without  the  aid  of  divine  grace,  and  which  makes  it  congruous 
or  specially  fitting  for  God  to  reward  the  agent  by  infusing 
grace  into  his  heart. 

It  is  extremely  difficult  to  determine  the  exact  position  of 
the  Romish  Church  on  this  subject,  since  different  schools  of 
theologians  in  her  midst  differ  widely,  and  the  decisions  of  the 
Council  of  Trent  are  studiously  ambiguous.  The  general  be- 
lief appears  to  be  that  ability  to  perform  good  works  springs 
from  grace  infused  into  the  sinner's  heart  for  Christ's  sake, 
through  the  instrumentality  of  the  sacraments,  but  that  after- 
wards these  good  works  merit,  that  is,  lay  for  us  the  founda- 
tion of  a  just  claim  to  salvation  and  glory.  Some  say,  like 
Bellarmin,  "De  Justilic,"  5,  1,  and  4,  7,  that  this  merit  attaches 
to  the  good  works  of  Christians  intrinsically,  as  well  as  in  con- 
sequence of  God's  promise;  others  that  these  works  deserve  the 
reward  only  because  God  has  promised  the  reward  on  the 
condition  of  the  work. — "Coun.  Trent,"  Sess.  vi.,  Cap.  xvi.,  and 
canons  24  and  32. 

20.  What  is  necessary  that  a  work  should  be  in  the  proper  sense 
of  the  term  meritorious  ? 

Turretin  makes  five  conditions  necessary  to  that  end.  1st 
That  the  work  be  not  of  debt,  or  which  the  worker  was  under 
obligation  to  render. — Luke  xvii.  10.  2d.  That  it  is  our  own, 
i.  e.,  effected  by  our  own  natural  energy.  3d.  That  it  be  per* 
feet.     4th.  That  it  be  equal  to  the  reward  merited.     5th.  That 


528  SANCTIFICA  TION. 

the  reward  be  of  justice  due  to  such  an  act. — Turretin,  L.  xvii., 
Quaestio  5. 

According  to  this  definition,  it  is  evident,  from  the  absolute 
dependence  and  obligation  of  the  creature,  that  he  can  never 
merit  any  reward  for  whatever  obedience  he  may  render  to  the 
commands  of  his  Creator.  1st.  Because  all  the  strength  he 
works  with  is  freely  given  by  God.  2d.  All  the  service  he  can 
render  is  owed  to  God.  3d.  Nothing  he  can  do  can  equal  the 
reward  of  God's  favor  and  eternal  blessedness. 

Under  the  covenant  of  works,  God  graciously  promised  to 
reward  the  obedience  of  Adam  with  eternal  life.  This  was  a 
reward,  however,  not  of  merit,  but  of  free  grace  and  promise. 
Every  thing  under  that  constitution  depended  upon  the  stand- 
ing of  the  person  before  God.  As  long  as  Adam  continued 
without  sin,  his  services  were  accepted  and  rewarded  according 
to  promise.  But  from  the  moment  he  forfeited  the  promise,  and 
lost  his  standing  before  God,  no  work  of  his,  no  matter  of  what 
character,  could  merit  any  thing  at  the  hand  of  God. 

21.  How  can  it  be  proved  that  our  good  works,  even  after  the 
restoration  of  our  person  to  God's  favor  by  justification,  do  not 
merit  heaven  ? 

1st.  Justification  proceeds  upon  the  infinite  merits  of  Christ, 
and  on  that  foundation  rests  our  title  to  the  favor  of  God  and 
all  the  infinite  consequences  thereof.  Christ's  merit,  lying  at 
the  foundation  and  embracing  all,  excludes  the  possibility  of  our 
meriting  any  thing.  2d.  The  law  demands  perfect  obedience. — 
Rom.  iii.  23;  Gal.  v.  3.  3d.  We  are  saved  by  grace  not  by 
works. — Eph.  ii.  8,  9.  4th.  All  good  dispositions  are  graces  or 
gifts  of  God.— 1  Cor.  xv.  10;  Phil.  ii.  13;  1  Thess.  ii.  13. 
5th.  Eternal  life  itself  is  declared  to  be  the  gift  of  God. — 1 
John  v.  11. 

22.  What  do  the  Scriptures  teach  concerning  the  good  warlcs 
of  believers,  and  the  rewards  promised  to  them  ? 

Both  the  work  and  its  reward  are  branches  from  the  same 
gracious  root.  The  covenant  of  grace  provides  alike  for  the 
infusion  of  grace  in  the  heart,  the  exercise  of  this  grace  in  the 
life,  and  the  rewards  of  that  grace  so  exercised.  It  is  all  of 
grace,  grace  for  grace,  grace  added  to  grace,  presented  to  us  in 
this  form  of  a  reward:  1st.  That  it  may  act  upon  us  as  a 
rational  motive  to  diligent  obedience.  2d.  To  mark  that  the 
gift  of  heaven  and  eternal  blessedness  is  an  act  of  strict  legal 
justice  (1)  in  respect  to  the  perfect  merits  of  Christ,  (2)  in  re- 
spect to  God's  faithful  adherence  to  his  own  free  promise. — 1 
John  i.  9.     3d.  To  indicate  that  the  heavenly  reward  stands  in 


PERFECTIONISM:    PELAGIAN    VIEW.  529 

a  certain  gracious  proportion  to  the  grace  given  in  the  obedi- 
ence on  earth;  (1)  because  God  so  wills  it,  Matt.  xvi.  27;  1  Cor. 
iii.  8 ;  (3)  because  the  grace  given  on  earth  prepares  the  soul  to 
receive  the  grace  given  in  heaven,  2  Cor.  iv.  17. 

Is    PERFECT    SaNCTIFICATION   ATTAINABLE    BY    BELIEVERS    IN    CHRIST    IN 

this  Life? 

23.  What,  in  general  terms,  is  perfectionism  ? 

The  various  theories  of  perfectionism  all  agree  in  maintain- 
ing that  it  is  possible  for  a  child  of  God  in  this  world  to  become, 
1st,  perfectly  free  from  sin,  2d,  conformed  to  the  law  under 
which  they  now  live.  They  differ  very  variously  among  them- 
selves, however,  1st,  as  to  what  sin  is;  2d,  as  to  what  law  we 
are  now  obliged  to  fulfil;  3d,  as  to  the  means  whereby  this 
perfection  may  be  attained,  whether  by  nature  or  by  grace. 

24.  How  does  the  Pelagian  theory  of  the  nature  of  man  and  of 
grace  lead  to  perfectionism  ? 

Pelagians  maintain,  1st,  as  to  man's  nature,  that  it  was  not 
radically  corrupted  by  the  fall,  and  that  every  man  possesses 
sufficient  power  to  fulfil  all  the  duties  required  of  him,  since 
God  can  not  in  justice  demand  that  which  man  has  not  full 
power  to  do.  2d.  As  to  God's  grace,  that  it  is  nothing  more 
than  the  favorable  constitution  of  our  own  minds,  and  the  in- 
fluence exerted  on  them  by  the  truth  he  has  revealed  to  us,  and 
the  propitious  circumstances  in  which  he  has  placed  us.  Thus 
in  the  Christian  church,  and  with  the  Christian  revelation,  men 
are,  in  fact,  placed  in  the  most  propitious  circumstances  possible 
to  persuade  them  to  perform  their  duties.  It  follows  from  this 
system  directly  that  every  one  who  wishes  may  certainly  attain 
perfection  by  using  his  natural  powers  and  advantages  of  posi- 
tion with  sufficient  care. — "Wigger's  Historical  View  of  Augus- 
tinianisra  and  Pelagianism." 

25.  What,  according  to  the  Pelagian  theory,  is  the  nature  of 
the  sin  from  which  man  may  be  'perfectly  free;  lohat  the  laio  which 
he  may  perfectly  fulfil,  and  ivhat  are  the  means  by  which  this  per- 
fection may  be  attained? 

They  deny  original  and  inherent  corruption  of  nature,  and 
hold  that  sin  is  only  voluntary  transgression  of  known  law, 
from  which  any  man  may  abstain  if  he  will. 

As  to  the  law  which  man  in  his  present  state  may  perfectly 
fulfil,  they  hold  that  it  is  the  single  and  original  law  of  God, 
the  requirements  of  which,  however,  in  the  case  of  every  indi 
34 


530  SANCTIFICA  TION. 

vidnal  subject,  are  measured  by  the  individual's  ability,  and 
opportunities  of  knowledge.  As  to  the  means  whereby  this 
perfection  may  be  attained,  they  maintain  the  plenary  ability 
of  man's  natural  will  to  discharge  all  the  obligations  resting 
upon  him,  and  they  admit  the  assistance  of  God's  grace  only 
in  the  sense  of  the  influence  of  the  truth,  and  other  propitious 
circumstances  in  persuading  man  to  use  his  own  power.  Thus 
the  means  of  perfect  sanctification  are,  1st,  man's  own  volition, 
2d,  as  helped  by  the  study  of  the  Bible,  prudent  avoidance  of 
temptation,  etc. 

20.  In  wliat  sense  do  Romanists  hold  the  doctrine  of  perfection? 

The  decisions  of  the  Council  of  Trent  upon  the  subject,  as 
upon  all  critical  points,  are  studiously  ambiguous.  They  lay 
down  the  principle  that  the  law  must  be  possible  to  them  upon 
whom  it  is  binding,  since  God  does  not  command  impossibili- 
ties. Men  justified  (sanctified)  may  by  the  grace  of  God  dwell- 
ing in  them  satisfy  the  divine  law,  pro  hujus  vitce  statu,  i.  e.,  as 
graciously  for  Christ's  sake  adjusted  to  our  present  capacities. 
They  confess,  nevertheless,  that  the  just  may  fall  into  venial 
sins  every  day,  and  that  while  in  the  flesh  no  man  can  live 
entirely  without  sin  (unless  by  a  special  privilege  of  God) ;  yet 
that  in  this  life  the  renewed  can  fully  keep  the  divine  law; 
and  even  by  the  observance  of  the  evangelical  counsels  do  more 
than  is  commanded;  and  thus,  as  many  saints  have  actually 
done,  lay  up  a  fund  of  supererogatory  merit. — "Council  of 
Trent,"  Session  vi.  Compare  Chap.  xi.  and  xvi.,  and  Canons 
18,  23,  and  32.     See  above,  Question  14. 

27.  In  ivhat  sense  do  they  hold  that  the  renewed  may,  in  this 
life  live  ivithoid  sin;  in  ichat  sense  f idly  satisfy  the  laiv ;  and  by 
tlie  use  of  what  means  do  they  teach  that  this  perfection  may  be 
attained  ? 

As  to  sin,  they  hold  the  distinction  between  mortal  and  venial 
sins,  and  that  the  concupiscence  that  remains  in  the  bosom  of 
the  renewed,  as  the  result  of  original  and  the  fuel  of  actual 
sin.  is  not  itself  sin,  since  sin  consists  only  in  the  consent  of 
the  will  to  the  impulse  of  concupiscence.  In  accordance  with 
these  views  they  hold  that  a  Christian  in  this  life  may  live 
without  committing  mortal  sins,  but  that  he  never  can  be  free 
from  the  inward  movements  of  concupiscence,  nor  from  liability 
to  fall  through  ignorance,  inattention,  or  passion,  into  venial 
sins. 

As  to  the  law,  which  a  believer  in  this  life  may  fully  satisfy, 
they  hold  that  as  God  is  just  and  can  not  demand  of  us  what 


PERFECTIONISM:    ARMINIAN    VIEW.  531 

is  impossible,  his  law  is  graciously  adjusted  to  our  present  ca- 
pacities, as  assisted  by  grace,  and  that  it  is  this  law  pro  hujuA 
vitas  stain,  which  we  may  fulfil 

As  to  the  means  whereby  this  perfection  may  be  attained, 
they  hold  that  divine  grace  precedes,  accompanies,  and  follows 
all  of  our  good  works,  which  divine  grace  is  to  be  sought 
through  those  sacramental  and  priestly  channels  which  Christ 
has  instituted  in  his  church,  and  especially  in  the  observance 
of  works  of  prayer,  fasting,  and  alms  deeds,  and  the  acquisition 
of  supererogatory  merit  by  the  fulfilment  of  the  counsels  of 
Christ  to  chastity,  obedience,  and  voluntary  poverty. — "Council 
of  Trent,"  Sess.  xiv.,  Chapter  v.,  Sess.  vi.,  Chapters  xi.  and  xii., 
Sess.  v.,  Canon  5;  "Cat.  Rom.,"  Part  II.,  Chapter  ii.,  Question 
32,  and  Part  II,,  Chapter  v.,  Question  59,  and  Part  III.,  Chapter 
x.,  Questions  5-10. 

28.  In  what  form  icas  the  doctrine  taught  by  tlie  early  Ar- 
minia/ns? 

Arminius  declared  that  his  mind  was  in  suspense  upon  this 
subject  ("Writings  of  Arminius,"  translated  by  Nichols,  Vol.  1., 
p.  256).  His  immediate  successors  in  the  theological  leadership 
of  the  remonstrant  party,  developed  a  theory  of  perfectionism 
apparently  identical  with  that  taught  by  Wesley,  and  professed 
by  his  disciples.  "A  man  can,  with  the  assistance  of  divine 
grace,  keep  all  the  commandments  of  God  perfectly,  according 
to  the  gospel  or  covenant  of  grace.  The  highest  evangelical 
perfection  (for  we  are  not  teaching  a  legal  perfection,  which 
includes  sinlessness  entire  in  all  respects  and  in  the  highest 
degree,  and  excludes  all  imperfection  and  infirmity,  for  this 
we  believe  to  be  impossible),  embraces  two  things,  1st,  a  per- 
fection proportioned  to  the  powers  of  each  individual;  2d, 
a  desire  of  making  continual  progress  and  increasing  one's 
strength  more  and  more." — Episcopius,  quoted  by  Dr.  G.  Peck, 
"Christian  Perfection,"  pp.  135  and  136. 

29.  What  is  the  Wesleyan  doctnne  on  this  subject  ? 

1st.  That  although  every  believer  as  soon  as  he  is  justified 
is  regenerated,  and  commences  the  incipient  stages  of  sanctifi- 
cation,  yet  this  does  not  exclude  the  remains  of  much  inherent 
sin,  nor  the  warfare  of  the  flesh  against  the  Spirit,  which  may 
continue  for  a  long  time,  but  which  must  *ease  at  some  time 
before  the  subject  can  be  fit  for  heaven. 

2d.  This  state  of  progressive  sanctilication  is  not  itself  per- 
fection, which  is  properly  designated  by  the  phrases  "entire," 
or  "perfect  salification."  This,  sooner  or  later,  every  heir  of 
glory  must  experience;  although  the  majority  do  not  reach  it 


532  SANCTIFICATION. 

long  before  death,  it  is  the  attainment  of  some  in  the  midst  of 
life,  and  consequently  it  is  the  duty  and  privilege  of  all  to 
desire,  strive  for,  and  expect  its  attainment  now. 

3d.  This  state  of  evangelical  perfection  does  not  consist  in 
an  ability  to  fulfil  perfectly  the  original  and  absolute  law  of 
holiness  under  which  Adam  was  created,  nor  does  it  exclude 
all  liability  to  mistake,  or  to  the  infirmities  of  the  flesh,  and  of 
natural  temperament,  but  it  does  exclude  all  inward  disposition 
to  sin  as  well  as  all  outward  commission  of  it,  since  it  consists 
in  a  state  in  which  perfect  faith  in  Christ  and  perfect  love  for 
God  fills  the  whole  soul  and  governs  the  entire  life,  and  thus 
fulfils  all  the  requirements  of  the  "  law  of  Christ,"  under  which 
alone  the  Christian's  probation  is  now  held. 

30.  In  lohat  sense  do  they  teach  that  men  may  live  without  sin  ? 

Mr.  Wesley  did  not  himself  use,  though  he  did  not  object  to, 
the  phrase  "  sinless  perfection."  He  distinguished  between 
"  sin,  properly  so  called,  i.  e.,  a  voluntary  transgression  of  a 
known  law,  and  sin,  improperly  so  called,  i.  e.,  an  involuntary 
trangression  of  a  divine  law,  known  or  unknown,"  and  declared 
"  I  believe  there  is  no  such  perfection  in  this  life  as  excludes 
these  involuntary  transgressions,  which  I  apprehend  to  be  nat- 
urally consequent  on  the  ignorance  and  mistakes  inseparable 
from  mortality."  He  also  declares  that  the  obedience  of  the 
perfect  Christian  "  can  not  bear  the  rigor  of  God's  justice,  but 
needs  atoning  blood,"  and  consequently  the  most  perfect  "must 
continually  say,  'forgive  us  our  trespasses,'"  and  Dr.  Peck  says 
that  the  holier  men  are  here  "  the  more  they  loathe  and  abhor 
themselves."  On  the  other  hand  they  hold  that  a  Christian 
may  in  this  life  attain  to  a  state  of  perfect  and  constant  love, 
which  fulfils  perfectly  all  the  requirements  of  the  gospel  cove- 
nant. Violations  of  the  original  and  absolute  law  of  God  are 
not  counted  to  the  believer  for  sin,  since  for  him  Christ  has 
been  made  the  end  of  that  law  for  righteousness,  and  for  Christ's 
sake  he  has  been  delivered  from  that  law  and  been  made  sub- 
ject to  the  "  law  of  Christ,"  and  that  only  is  sin  to  the  Christian 
which  is  a  violation  of  this  law  of  love.  See  Mr.  Wesley's 
"Tract  on  Christian  Perfection,"  in  the  volume  of  "Methodist 
Doctrinal  Tracts,"  pp.  294,  310,  312,  and  Dr.  Peck's  "  Christian 
Doc.  of  Perfection,"  p.  204. 

31.  What  law  do  they  say  the  Christian  can  in  this  life  per- 
fectly ohcij  ? 

Dr.  Peck  says,  p.  244,  "To  fallen  humanity,  though  renewed 
by  grace,  perfect  obedience  to  the  moral  law  is  inpracticable 
during  the  present  probationary  state.    And  consequently  Chris- 


PERFECTIONISM:    OBERLIN    VIEW.  533 

tian  perfection  does  not  imply  perfect  obedience  to  the  moral 
law."— Peck,  p.  244. 

This  moral  law  they  hold  to  be  universal  and  unchangea- 
ble, all  moral  agents  are  under  perpetual  obligations  to  fulfil  it, 
and  they  are  in  no  degree  released  therefrom  by  their  loss  of 
ability  through  sin. — Peck,  p.  271.  This  law  sustains,  how- 
ever, a  twofold  relation  to  the  creature.  1st.  It  is  a  rule  of 
being  and  acting.  2d.  It  is  a  condition  of  acceptance.  In  con- 
sequence of  sin,  it  became  impossible  for  men  to  obtain  salva- 
tion by  the  law,  and  therefore  Christ  appeared  and  rendered  to 
this  law  perfect  satisfaction  in  our  stead,  and  thus  is  for  us  the 
end  of  the  law  for  righteousness.  This  law,  therefore,  remain- 
ing forever  as  a  rule  of  duty,  is  abrogated  by  Christ  as  a  condi- 
tion of  our  acceptance.  "Nor  is  any  man  living  bound  to 
observe  the  Adamic  more  than  the  Mosaic  law  (I  mean  it  is  not 
the  condition  either  of  present  or  future  salvation.)" — "Doc- 
trinal Tracts,"  p.  332.  "  The  gospel,  which  is  the  law  of  love, 
the  '  law  of  liberty,'  offers  salvation  upon  other  terms,  and  yet 
provides  the  vindication  of  the  broken  law.  The  condition  of 
justification  at  first  is  faith  alone,  and  the  condition  of  continued 
acceptance  is  faith  working  by  love.  There  are  degrees  of  faith, 
and  degrees  of  love.  .  .  .  Perfect  faith  and  perfect  love  is 
Christian  perfection."  "Christian  character  is  estimated  by  the 
conditions  of  the  gospel;  Christian  perfection  implies  the  per- 
fect performance  of  these  conditions  and  nothing  more." 

32.  By  what  means  do  they  teach  this  perfection  is  to  be  at- 
tained? 

Wesley  says,  "  I  believe  this  perfection  is  always  wrought 
in  the  soul  by  a  simple  act  of  faith,  consequently  in  an  instant. 
But  I  believe  there  is  a  gradual  work,  both  preceding  and  fol- 
lowing that  instant." — Quoted  by  Dr.  Peck,  pp.  47,  48. 

They  hold  that  this  entire  sanctification  is  not  to  be  effected 
through  either  the  strength  or  the  merit  of  man,  but  entirely 
of  grace,  for  Christ's  sake,  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  through  the  in- 
strumentality of  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  which  faith  in- 
volves our  believing,  1st,  "  in  the  sufficiency  of  the  provisions 
of  the  gospel  for  the  complete  deliverance  of  the  soul  from  sin." 
2d.  "That  these  provisions  are  made  for  vs."  3d.  "That  this 
blessing  is  for  us  noiv." — Peck,  "Ch.  Doc.  Sane,"  pp.  405-407. 

33.  What  is  the  Oberlin  doctrine  of  perfection? 

"  It  is  a  full  and  perfect  discharge  of  our  entire  duty,  of  all 
existing  obligations  to  God,  and  all  other  beings.  It  is  perfect 
obedience  to  the  moral  law."     This  is  God's  original  and  uni 


634  SANC  TIFICA  TIO  Y 

versal  law,  which,  however,  always,  not  because  of  grace,  but 
of  sheer  justice,  adjusts  its  demands  to  the  measure  of  the  pres- 
ent ability  of  the  subject.  The  law  of  God  can  not  now  justly 
demand  that  we  should  love  him  as  we  might  have  done  if  we 
had  always  improved  our  time,  etc.  Yet  a  Christian  may  now 
attain  to  a  state  of  "perfect  and  disinterested  benevolence," 
may  be,  "  according  to  his  knowledge,  as  upright  as  God  is,"  and 
as  "perfectly  conformed  to  the  will  of  God  as  is  the  will  of  the 
inhabitants  of  heaven."  And  this,  Mr.  Finney  appears  to  teach, 
is  essential  for  even  the  lowest  stage  of  genuine  Christian  ex- 
perience. The  amount  of  the  matter  appears  to  be,  God  has  a 
right  to  demand  only  that  which  we  have  the  power  to  render; 
therefore,  it  follows  that  we  have  full  power  to  render  all  that 
God  demands,  and,  therefore,  we  may  be  as  perfectly  conformed 
to  his  will  as  it  regards  us,  as  the  inhabitants  of  heaven  are  to 
his  will  as  it  regards  tJiem." 

Pres.  Mahan,  "  Scripture  Doctrines  of  Christian  Perfection," 
and  Prof.  Finney,  "  Oberlin  Evangelist,"  Vol.  IV.,  No.  19,  and 
Vol.  IV.,  No.  15,  as  quoted  by  Dr.  Peck. 

34.  State  the  points  of  agreement  and  disagreement  behveen  tlwse 
several  theories,  Pelagian,  Romish,  Arminian,  and  Oberlin? 

1st.  They  all  agree  in  maintaining  that  it  is  possible  for  men 
in  this  life  to  attain  a  state  in  which  they  may  habitually  and 
perfectly  fulfil  all  their  obligations,  i.  e.,  to  be  and  do  perfectly 
all  that  God  requires  them  to  be  or  do  at  present. 

2d.  The  Pelagian  theory  differs  from  all  the  rest,  in  denying 
the  deterioration  of  our  natural  and  moral  powers,  and  conse- 
quently, in  denying  the  necessity  of  the  intervention  of  super- 
natural grace  to  the  end  of  making  men  perfect. 

3d.  The  Pelagian  and  Oberlin  theories  agree  in  making  the 
original  moral  law  of  God  the  standard  of  perfection.  The 
Oberlin  theologians,  however,  admitting  that  our  powers  are 
deteriorated  by  sin,  hold  that  God's  law,  as  a  matter  of  sheer 
justice,  adjusts  its  demands  to  the  present  ability  of  the  subject. 
The  Romish  theory  regards  the  same  law  as  the  standard  of 
perfection,  but  differs  from  the  Pelagian  theory  in  maintaining 
that  the  demands  of  this  law  are  adjusted  to  man's  deteriorated 
powers ;  and  on  the  other  hand,  it  differs  from  the  Oberlin  the- 
ory, by  holding  that  the  lowering  of  the  demands  of  this  law 
in  adjustment  to  the  enfeebled  powers  of  man,  instead  of  being 
of  sheer  justice,  is  of  grace  for  the  merits  of  Christ.  The  Ar- 
minian theory  differs  from  all  the  rest  in  denying  that  the  orig- 
inal law  is  the  standard  of  evangelical  perfection;  in  holding 
that  that  law  having  been  fulfilled  by  Christ,  the  Christian  is 
now  required  only  to  fulfil  the  requirements  of  the  gospel  cove- 


PERFECTIONISM :    ARGUMENTS.  535 

nant  of  grace.     This,  however,  appears  to  differ  more  in  form 
than  essence  from  the  Romish  position  in  this  regard. 

4th.  The  Romish  and  Arminian  theories  agree — 1st.  In 
admitting  that  the  perfect  Christian  is  still  liable  to  transgress 
the  provisions  of  the  original  moral  law,  and  that  he  is  subject 
to  mistakes  and  infirmities.  The  Romanist  calls  them  venial 
sins;  the  Arminian,  mistakes  or  infirmities.  2d.  In  referring 
all  the  work  of  making  man  perfect  to  the  efficiency  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  who  is  given  for  Christ's  sake.  But  they  differ,  on 
the  other  hand,  1st,  as  to  the  nature  of  that  faith  by  which 
sanctification  is  effected,  and,  2d,  as  to  the  merit  of  good  works. 

35.  What  are  the  arguments  upon  which  perfectionists  sustain 
their  tliewy,  and  how  may  they  be  answered? 

1st.  They  argue  that  this  perfection  is  attainable  in  this  life, 
(1.)  From  the  commands  of  God,  who  never  will  command 
impossibilities. — Matt.  v.  48.  (2.)  From  the  fact  that  abundant 
provision  has  already  been  made  in  the  gospel  for  securing  the 
perfect  sanctification  of  God's  people;  in  fact,  all  the  provision 
that  ever  will  be  made.  (3.)  From  the  promises  of  God  to 
redeem  Israel  from  all  his  iniquities,  etc. — Ps.  cxxx.  8;  Ezek. 
xxxvi.  25-29;  1  John  i.  7,  9.  (4.)  From  the  prayers  of  saints 
recorded  in  Scripture  with  implied  approval. — Ps.  li.  2;  Heb. 
xiii.  21. 

2d.  They  argue  that  this  perfection  has  in  fact  been  attained, 
(1.)  From  biblical  examples,  as  David. — Acts  xiii.  22.  See  also 
Gen.  vi.  9;  Job  i.  1;  Luke  i.  6.  (2.)  Modern  examples — Peck's 
"  Christian  Perfection,"  pp.  365-396. 

We  answer — 

1st.  The  Scriptures  never  assert  that  a  Christian  may  in  this 
life  attain  to  a  state  in  which  he  may  live  without  sin. 

2d.  The  meaning  of  special  passages  must  be  interpreted  in 
consistency  with  the  entire  testimony  of  Scripture. 

3d.  The  language  of  Scripture  never  implies  that  man  may 
here  live  without  sin.  The  commands  of  God  are  adjusted  to 
man's  responsibility,  and  the  aspirations  and  prayers  of  the 
saints  to  their  duties  and  ultimate  privileges,  and  not  to  their 
present  ability.  Perfection  is  the  true  aim  of  the  Christian's 
effort  in  every  period  of  growth  and  in  every  act.  The  terms 
"perfect"  and  "blameless"  are  often  relative,  or  used  to  sig- 
nify simple  genuineness  or  sincerity.  This  is  evident  from  the 
recorded  fact — 

4th.  That  all  the  perfect  men  of  the  Scriptures  sometimes 
sinned;  witness  the  histories  of  Noah,  Job,  David,  Paul,  and 
compare  Gen.  vi.  9,  with  Gen.  ix.  21,  and  Job  i.  1,  with  Job  iii.  1, 


536  SANCTIFJCAT10N. 

and  ix.  20;  also  see  Gal.  ii.  11,  14;  Ps.  xix.  12;  Roin.  vii. ;  GaL 
v.  17;  Phil.  iii.  12-14. 

30.  What  special  objections  bear  against  the  Pelagian  theory  of 
'perfection  ? 

This  is  a  part  of  a  wholly  Anti-Christian  system.  Its  con- 
stituent elements  are  a  denial  of  the  Scripture  testimony  with 
regard  to  original  sin,  and  the  work  of  the  Spirit  of  grace  in 
effectual  calling,  and  an  assertion  of  man's  ability  to  save  him- 
self. It  involves  low  views  of  the  guilt  and  turpitude  of  sin, 
and  of  the  extent,  spirituality,  and  unchangeableness  of  God's 
holy  law.  This  is  the  only  perfectly  consistent  theory  of  perfec- 
tion ever  ventilated,  and  in  the  same  proportion  it  is  the  most 
thoroughly  unchristian. 

37.  What  special  objections  bear  against  the  Romish  theory  ? 

This  theory  is  inconsistent — 

1st.  With  the  true  nature  of  sin.  It  denies  that  concupis- 
cence is  sin,  and  admits  as  such  only  those  deliberate  acts  of  the 
will  which  assent  to  the  impulse  of  concupiscence.  It  distin- 
guishes between  mortal  and  venial  sins.  The  truth  is  that 
every  sin  is  mortal,  and  concupiscence,  "sin  dwelling  in  me," 
"law  in  my  members,"  is  of  the  very  essence  of  sin. — Rom. 
vii.  8-23. 

2d.  It  is  inconsistent  with  the  nature  of  God's  holy  law, 
which  is  essentially  immutable,  and  the  demands  of  which  have 
never  been  lowered  in  accommodation  to  the  weakened  faculties 
of  men. 

3d.  It  is  essentially  connected  with  their  theory  of  the 
merit  of  good  works,  and  of  the  higher  merit  of  works  of 
supererogation  which  is  radically  subversive  of  the  essentials 
of  the  gospel. 

38.  What  special  objections  bear  against  tlie  Oberlin  theory  ? 

This  theory  appears  to  assimilate  more  nearly  than  the 
others  with  the  terrible  self-consistency  and  the  Anti-Christian 
spirit  of  the  Pelagian  view.  It  differs  from  that  heresy,  how- 
ever, in  holding — 1st,  That  the  law  of  God  is,  as  a  matter  of 
sheer  justice,  accommodated  to  the  weakened  faculties  of  men. 
2d.  That  the  shortcomings  of  men  in  the  present  life,  as  meas- 
ured by  the  original  law  of  God,  are  not  sin,  since  a  man's  duty 
is  measured  only  by  his  ability.  3d.  In  making  the  principle 
of  this  perfection  to  consist  in  "perfect  and  disinterested 
benevolence."  In  all  these  respects,  also,  this  theory  is  incon- 
sistent with  the  true  nature  of  God's  law,  the  true  nature  of 
sin,  and  the  true  nature  of  virtue. 


PERFECTIONISM :    OBJECTIONS.  537 

39.  What  special  objections  bear  against  the  Arminian  theory  ? 

This  view,  as  presented  by  the  Wesleyan  standard  writers, 
is  far  less  inconsistent  with  the  principles  and  spirit  of  Chris- 
tianity than  either  of  the  others,  and  consequently  it  is  pre- 
cisely in  the  same  proportion  less  self-consistent  as  a  theory, 
and  less  accurate  in  its  use  of  technical  language.  These  Chris- 
tian brethren  are  to  be  honored  for  their  exalted  views,  and 
earnest  advocacy  of  the  duty  of  pressing  forward  to  the  high- 
est measures  of  Christian  attainment,  while  it  is  to  be  forever 
lamented  that  their  great  founder  was  so  far  misled  by  the 
prejudices  of  system  as  to  bind  in  unnatural  alliance  so  much 
precious  truth  with  a  theory  and  terminology  proper  only  to 
radical  error.  I  will  make  here,  once  for  all,  the  general  ex- 
planation, that  when  stating  the  Arminian  doctrine  on  any 
point,  I  have  generally  preferred  to  refer  to  the  form  in  which 
the  doctrine  was  explicitly  defined  by  the  Dutch  Remonstrants, 
rather  than  to  the  modified,  and,  as  it  seems  to  me,  far  less 
logically  definite  form  in  which  it  is  set  forth  by  the  author- 
ities of  the  Wesleyan  churches,  who  properly  style  themselves 
"Evangelical  Arminians."  I  attribute  the  peculiar  theoretical 
indefiniteness  which  appears  to  render  their  definitions  obscure, 
especially  on  the  subjects  of  justification  and  of  perfection,  to 
the  spirit  of  a  warm,  loving,  working  Christianity  straggling 
with  the  false  premises  of  an  Arminian  philosophy. 

1st.  While  over  and  over  insisting  upon  the  distinction  as 
to  the  twofold  relation  sustained  by  the  original  law  of  God 
to  man  (1)  as  a  rule  of  being  and  acting,  (2)  as  a  condition  of 
divine  favor,  their  whole  theory  is  based  upon  a  logical  con- 
fusion of  these  two  things  so  distinct.  Dr.  Peck  teaches  ear- 
nestly, and  confirms  by  many  Wesleyan  testimonies,  excellent 
Calvinistic  doctrine  upon  the  following  points:  The  original 
law  of  God  is  universal  and  unchangeable,  its  demands  never 
can  be  changed  nor  compromised.  Obedience  to  this  law  was 
the  condition  of  the  original  covenant  of  works.  This  condi- 
tion was  broken  by  Adam,  but,  in  our  behalf,  perfectly  fulfilled 
by  Christ,  and  thus  the  integrity  of  God's  changeless  law  was 

f>reserved.  Therefore,  he  goes  on  to  argue,  the  believer  is  no 
onger  under  the  law,  but  under  the  covenant  of  grace,  i.  e., 
to  use  Wesley's  own  qualifying  parenthesis,  "as  the  condition 
of  either  present  or  future  salvation."  Certainly,  we  answer, 
Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law  for  us  for  righteousness,  in  its 
forensic  sense,  that  is,  to  secure  our  justification,  but  surely 
Christ  did  not  satisfy  that  changeless  law,  in  our  place,  in  such 
a  sense  that  it  does  not  remain  our  rule  of  action,  to  which  it 
is  our  duty  to  be  personally  conformed.     The  question  of  per 


538  SAJVC  TIFICA  TION. 

fection  is  one  which  relates  to  our  personal  character,  not  to 
our  relations;  it  is  moral  and  inherent,  and  not  forensic.  To 
prove,  therefore,  what  we  also  rejoice  to  believe,  that  the  orig- 
inal law  of  God,  under  the  gospel  covenant,  is  no  longer  our 
condition  of  salvation,  does  not  avail  one  iota  towards  proving 
that  God,  under  the  gospel,  demands  an  obedience  adjusted  to 
any  easier  standard  than  was  required  before. 

2d.  This  theory  is  part  of  the  Arminian  view  of  the  covenant 
of  grace,  which  we  regard  so  inconsistent  with  the  gospel,  and 
which  Mr.  Watson  (see  "Institutes,"  Part  II.,  Chap,  xxiii.)  ap- 
pears to  attempt  to  avoid  while  refusing  to  admit  the  imputa- 
tion to  the  believer  of  Christ's  righteousness.  This  view  is, 
that  by  Christ's  propitiation,  he  having  fulfilled  the  original 
law  of  God,  it  is  made  consistent  with  divine  justice  to  present 
salvation  upon  easier  conditions,  i.  e.,  faith  and  evangelical  obe- 
dience ;  Christian  perfection  requiring  nothing  more  than  the 
perfect  fulfilment  of  these  new  gracious  conditions.  Now  this 
view,  besides  confounding  the  ideas  of  law,  and  of  covenant, 
of  a  rule,  and  of  a  condition,  of  a  ground  of  justification,  and 
of  a  standard  of  sanctification,  is  inconsistent  with  the  broad 
teachings  of  the  gospel  concerning  the  righteousness  of  Christ, 
and  the  office  of  faith  in  justification.  It  makes  the  merit  of 
Christ  only  in  some  uncertain  and  distant  way  the  occasion 
of  our  salvation,  and  faith,  and  evangelical  obedience,  in  the 
place  of  perfect  obedience  under  the  old  covenant,  the  ground 
instead  of  the  mere  instrument  and  fruit  of  our  justification. 
Logically  developed,  this  theory  must  lead  to  the  Romish  doc- 
trine as  to  the  merit  of  good  works. 

3d.  This  theory  denies  that  mistakes  and  infirmities  result- 
ing from  the  effects  of  original  sin,  are  themselves  sin,  yet 
admits  that  they  are  to  be  confessed,  forgiveness  implored  for 
them,  and  the  atonement  of  Christ's  blood  applied  to  them,  and 
that  the  more  perfect  a  man  becomes  the  more  he  abhors  his 
own  internal  state.  Surely  this  is  a  confusion  of  language,  and 
abuse  of  the  word  sin.  AVhat  is  sin  but  (1)  that  which  trans- 
gresses God's  original  law,  (2)  which  needs  Christ's  atonement, 
(3)  which  should  be  confessed,  and  must  be  forgiven,  (4)  which 
lays  a  proper  foundation  for  self-abhorrence. 

40.  Wlvat  express  declarations  of  Scripture  are  contradicted  by 
every  possible  modification  of  the  theory  of  Christian  perfection? 

1  Kings  viii.  46 ;  Prov.  xx.  9 ;  Eccle.  vii.  20 ;  James  iii.  2 ;  1 
John  i.  8. 

41.  How  may  it  be  shown  to  be  in  opposition  to  the  experience 
tf  saints,  as  recorded  in  the  Scriptures  ? 


PERFECTIONISM  DISPROVED.  539 

See  Paul's  account  of  himself,  Rom.  vii.  14-25;  Phil.  iii.  12-14. 
See  case  of  David,  Ps.  xix.  12 ;  Ps.  li. ;  of  Moses,  Ps.  xc.  8 ;  of 
Job,  Job  xlii.  5,  6;  of  Daniel,  ix.  20.  See  Luke  xviii.  13; 
Gal.  ii.  11-13;  vi.  1;  James  v.  16. 

42.  How  does  it  conflict  with  tJie  ordinary  experience  of  God's 
people? 

The  more  holy  a  man  is,  the  more  humble,  self-renouncing, 
self-abhorring,  and  the  more  sensitive  to  every  sin  he  becomes, 
and  the  more  closely  he  clings  to  Christ.  The  moral  imperfec- 
tions which  cling  to  him  he  feels  to  be  sins,  laments  and  strives 
to  overcome  them.  Believers  find  that  their  life  is  a  constant 
warfare,  and  they  need  to  take  the  kingdom  of  heaven  by  storm, 
and  watch  while  they  pray.  They  are  always  subject  to  the  con- 
stant chastisement  of  their  Father's  loving  hand,  which  can  only 
be  designed  to  correct  their  imperfections,  and  to  confirm  their 
graces.  And  it  has  been  notoriously  the  fact  that  the  best 
Christians  have  been  those  who  have  been  the  least  prone  to 
claim  the  attainment  of  perfection  for  themselves. 

43.  What  are  tJie  legitimate  practiced  effects  of  perfectionism  ? 

The  tendency  of  every  such  doctrine  must  be  evil,  except 
in  so  far  as  it  is  modified  or  counteracted  by  limiting  or  incon- 
sistent truths  held  in  connection,  which  is  pre-eminently  the 
case  with  respect  to  the  Wesley  an  view,  from  the  amount  of 
pure  gospel  which  in  that  instance  the  figment  of  perfectionism 
alloys.  But  perfectionism,  by  itself,  must  tend,  1st,  to  low 
views  of  God's  law ;  2d,  to  inadequate  views  of  the  heinousness 
of  sin ;  3d,  to  a  low  standard  of  moral  excellence ;  4th,  to  spir- 
itual pride  and  fanaticism. 

Authoritative  Statements  of  Church  Docttne. 

Romish  Doctrine  as  to  the  moral  perfection  of  the  Regenerate, 
as  to  Good  Works,  and  Works  of  Supererogation.  As  to  their  view 
of  the  merit  of  good  works,  see  above,  Chap.  XXXHI. 

"Cone.  Trident. ,"  Sess.  5,  can.  5. — "If  any  one  denies,  that,  by  the 
grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  which  is  conferred  in  baptism,  the  guilt 
of  original  sin  is  remitted;  or  even  asserts  that  the  whole  of  that  which 
has  the  true  and  proper  nature  of  sin  is  not  taken  away;  but  says  that  it 

is  only  rased,  or  not  imputed;  let  him  be  anathema But 

this  holy  Synod  confesses  and  is  sensible,  that  in  the  baptized  there 
remains  concupiscence,  or  an  incentive  (to  sin).  .  .  .  This  concu- 
piscence, which  the  Apostle  sometimes  calls  sin,  the  holy  Synod  declares 
that  the  Catholic  Church  has  never  understood  it  to  be  called  sin,  as 
being  truly  and  properly  sin  in  those  born  again,  but  because  it  is  of  sin, 
and  inclines  to  sin.  If  any  man  is  of  a  contrary  sentiment,  let  him  he 
anathema. " 


640  SANCTIFICATION. 

"Cone.  Trident."  Sess.  6,  can.  18. —"If  any  one  says  that  the  con* 
mandments  of  God,  even  for  one  that  is  justified  and  constituted  in  grace, 
are  impossible  to  keep,  let  him  be  anathema." 

Bellarmin,  "De  Justific."  iv.  10,  sqq. — "If  precepts  are  impossible, 
they  oblige  no  one,  and  hence  the  precepts  are  not  precepts.  Neither 
is  it  possible  to  devise  wherein  any  one  sins  in  respect  to  that  which  it  is 
impossible  to  avoid." 

Ibid,  "De  Monackis,"  cap.  7. — "A  'council  of  perfection'  we  call  a 
good  work,  not  commanded  us  by  Christ,  but  declared;  not  appointed 
but  commended.  But  it  differs  from  a  precept  in  respect  to  its  matter, 
eubject,  form,  and  end.  (1.)  In  respect  to  their  mailer  (the  difference) 
is  twofold.  First,  because  the  matter  of  the  precept  is  easier,  that  of  the 
counsel  more  difficult,  for  the  former  is  derived  from  the  principles  of 
nature,  while  the  latter  in  some  sense  exceeds  nature,  e.  g.,  for  nature 
inclines  to  the  preservation  of  conjugal  fidelity,  but  not  to  abstaining 
from  the  conjugal  relation.  Secondly,  because  the  matter  of  the  precept 
is  good  .  .  .  for  the  council  includes  the  precept,  which  relates  to 
the  same  matter,  and  adds  something  beyond  the  precept.  (2.)  In  re- 
spect to  the  subject,  precepts  and  counsels  differ,  because  the  precept 
binds  all  men  in  common,  while  the  counsel  does  not.  (3.)  In  respect 
to  their  form  they  differ,  because  the  precept  binds  of  its  own  inherent 
obligation,  but  the  counsel  through  the  will  of  man.  (4. )  In  respect  to 
their  end  or  effects  they  differ,  because  the  precept  observed  has  a  reward, 
but  when  not  observed  a  penalty,  but  the  counsel  when  not  observed  has 
no  penalty,  but  when  observed  has  the  greater  reward."  Cap.  8. — "It 
is  the  opinion  of  all  Catholics  that  there  are  many  true  and  proper  evan- 
gelical counsels,  but  especially,  viz.,  celibacy,  poverty,  and  obedience 
(monastic),  which  are  neither  commanded  to  all,  nor  matters  of  indiffer- 
ence, but  grateful  to  God  and  by  him  commended  (Matt.  xix.  11,  sq.,  21; 
1  Cor.  vii.  1-7). " 

Lutheran  .Doctrine. 

"Apology  for  Augburg  Conf,"  p.  91. — "The  entire  Scripture  and  the 
whole  church  declare  that  the  Law  can  not  be  satisfied  (by  any  thing 
within  man's  power  since  the  fall).  This  incomplete  fulfilling  of  the  law 
is  accepted,  not  on  its  own  account,  but  only  through  faith  in  Christ. 
Otherwise  the  Law  always  accuses  us.  .  .  In  this  infirmity  there  is 
always  sin,  which  may  be  charged  to  our  account  (for  condemnation)." 

"Formida  Concordice,"  p.  678. — "The  papal  and  monastic  doctrine, 
that  a  man  after  he  is  regenerated  is  able  perfectly  to  fulfil  the  law  of 
God  in  this  life,  is  to  be  rejected." 

lb.,  p.  589. — "Our  Confession  is,  that  good  works  most  surely  and 
indubitably  follow  a  true  faith,  as  the  fruits  of  a  good  tree.  We  also 
believe  that  good  works  are  entirely  to  be  left  out  of  account,  not  only 
when  we  are  treating  of  justification,  but  even  when  we  are  debating  con- 
cerning our  eternal  life." 

lb.,  p.  700. — "  Because  those  are  not  good  works,  which  any  one  him- 
self devises  with  good  intention,  or  winch  are  done  according  to  human 
traditions  ;  but  those  which  God  himself  has  prescribed  and  ordered  in 
his  own  word.  Because  works  truly  good  can  be  performed,  not  by  the 
proper  natural  powers,  but  then  only  when  the  person  is,  by  faith,  recon- 
ciled with  God,  and  is  renewed  by  the  Spirit,  and  is  created  anew  to  good 
works,  in  Jesus  Christ. " 

Reformed  Doctrine. 

"Heidelberg  Catechism,"  Q.  62. — "Our  best  works  in  the  present  life 
are  all  imperfect  and  stained  with  sin." 


AUTHORITATIVE    STATEMENTS.  541 

"Tliirty-nine  Articles  of  the  Gliurch  of  England,"  Art.  12. — "Albeit  that 
Good  Works,  which  are  the  fruits  of  faith,  and  follow  after  Justification, 
can  not  put  away  our  sins,  and  endure  the  severity  of  God's  judgment ; 
yet  are  they  pleasing  and  acceptable  to  God  in  Christ,  and  do  spring  out 
necessarily  of  a  true  and  lively  faith;  insomuch  that  by  them  a  lively  faith 
may  be  as  evidently  known  as  a  tree  discerned  by  the  fruit. " 

lb.,  Art.  14. — "Voluntary  works  besides,  over  and  above,  God's  com- 
mandments, which  they  call  Works  of  Supererogation,  can  not  be  taught 
without  arrogancy  and  impiety;  for  by  them  men  do  declare  that  they  do 
not  only  render  unto  God  as  much  as  they  are  bound  to  do,  but  that  they 
do  more  for  his  sake,  than  of  bounden  duty  is  required:  whereas  Christ 
saith  plainly,  When  ye  have  done  all  that  are  commanded  to  you,  say, 
We  are  unprofitable  servants." 

"Confess.  Helvetica  posterior,"  p.  498. — "We  teach  that  God  gives  an 
ample  reward  to  those  doing  good  works.  Yet  we  refer  this  reward  that 
the  Lord  gives,  not  to  the  merit  of  the  men  receiving  it,  but  to  the 
goodness,  liberahty,  and  truth  of  God,  who  promises  and  bestows  it ; 
who,  while  he  owes  nothing  to  any  one,  yet  has  promised  that  he  will 
give  a  reward  to  his  faithful  worshippers. " 

"West.  Conf  of  Faith,"  ch.  16,  j}  4. — "They  who  in  their  obedience 
attain  to  the  greatest  height  which  is  possible  in  this  life,  are  so  far  from 
being  able  to  supererogate,  and  to  do  more  than  God  requires,  that  they 
fall  short  of  much,  which  in  their  duty  they  are  bound  to  do  "  (see  the 
whole  chapter). 

lb.,  chap.  13,  g  2. — "This  sanctification  is  throughout  in  the  whole 
man,  yet  imperfect  in  this  life :  there  abideth  still  some  remnants  of  cor- 
ruption in  every  part,  whence  ariseth  a  continual  and  irreconcilable  war, 
the  flesh  lusting  against  the  Spirit,  and  the  Spirit  against  the  flesh." 
\  3. — "  In  which  war,  although  the  remaining  corruption  for  a  time  may 
much  prevail,  yet,  through  the  continual  supply  of  strength  from  the 
sanctifying  Spirit  of  Christ,  the  regenerate  part  doth  overcome :  and  so 
the  saints  grow  in  grace,  perfecting  holiness  in  the  fear  of  God. " 


CHAPTER    XXXVI. 

PERSEVERANCE  OF  THE  SAINTS. 

1.  What  is  the  Scriptural  doctrine  as  to  the  perseverance  of  the 
saints  ? 

"They  whom  God  hath  accepted  in  his  beloved,  effectively 
called  and  sanctified  by  his  Spirit,  can  neither  totally  nor  finally 
fall  away  from  the  state  of  grace ;  but  shall  certainly  persevere 
therein  to  the  end,  and  be  eternally  saved." — "Con.  Faith," 
Chap.  xvii. ;  "L.  Cat,"  Question  79. 

2.  By  what  arguments  may  the  certainty  of  the  final  perseverance 
of  the  saints  be  establisJied. 

1st.  The  direct  assertions  of  Scripture. — John  x.  28,  29 ;  Rom. 
xi.  29;  Phil.  i.  6;  1  Pet.  i.  5. 

2d.  This  certainty  is  a  necessary  inference,  from  the  Scrip- 
tural doctrine  (1)  of  election,  Jer.  xxxi.  3;  Matt.  xxiv.  22-24; 
Acts  xiii.  48  ;  Rom.  viii.  30  ;  (2)  of  the  covenant  of  grace, 
wherein  the  Father  gave  his  people  to  his  Son  as  the  reward 
of  his  obedience  and  suffering,  Jer.  xxxii.  40;  John  xvii.  2—6; 
(3)  of  the  union  of  Christians  with  Christ,  in  the  federal  aspect 
of  which  Christ  is  their  surety,  and  they  can  not  fail  (Rom. 
viii.  1),  and  in  the  spiritual  and  vital  aspect  of  which  they  abide 
in  him,  and  because  he  lives  they  must  live  also,  John  xiv.  19 ; 
Rom.  viii.  38,  39;  Gal.  ii.  20;  (4)  of  the  atonement,  wherein 
Christ  discharged  all  the  obligations  of  his  people  to  the  law 
as  a  covenant  of  life,  and  purchased  for  them  all  covenanted 
blessings;  if  one  of  them  should  fail,  therefore,  the  sure  founda- 
tion of  all  would  be  shaken,  Is.  liii.  6,  11;  Matt.  xx.  28;  1  Pet. 
ii.  24;  (5)  of  justification,  which  declares  all  the  conditions  of 
the  covenant  of  life  satisfied,  and  sets  its  subject  into  a  new 
relation  to  God  for  all  future  time,  so  that  he  can  not  fall  under 
condemnation,  since  he  is  not  under  the  law,  but  under  grace, 
Rom.  vi.  14;  (6)  of  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  (a)  as  a 
seal  by  which  we  are  marked  as  belonging  to  God,  (6)  as  an 


OBJECTIONS    STATED  AND   ANSWERED.  543 

earnest,  or  first  instalment  of  the  promised  redemption,  in 
pledge  of  complete  fulfilment,  John  xiv.  16;  2  Cor.  i.  21,  22; 
v.  5;  Eph.  i.  14;  (7)  of  the  prevalency  of  Christ's  intercession. 
John  xi.  42;  xvii.  11,  15,  20;  Rom.  viii.  34. 

3.  WJiat  is  the  doctrine  of  tJie  Romish  Church  on  this  subject  ? 

"Council  of  Trent,"  Sess.  vi.,  Canon  23.  "If  any  one  main- 
tain that  a  man  once  justified  can  not  lose  grace,  and,  therefore, 
that  he  who  falls  and  sins  never  was  truly  justified,  let  him  be 
accursed." — See  below,  under  Romish  doctrine  in  this  chapter, 
their  view  as  to  "  venial  sins." 

4.  What  is  the  Arminian  doctrine  on  this  point  ? 

It  is  an  inseparable  part  of  the  Arminian  system,  flowing 
necessarily  from  their  views  of  election,  of  the  design  and 
effect  of  Christ's  death,  and  of  sufficient  grace  and  free  will, 
that  those  who  were  once  justified  and  regenerated  may,  by 
neglecting  grace  and  grieving  the  Holy  Spirit,  fall  into  such 
sins  as  are  inconsistent  with  true  justifying  faith,  and  continu- 
ing and  dying  in  the  same,  may  consequently  finally  fall  into 
perdition. — "Confession  of  the  Remonstrants,"  xi.  7.  The  Lu- 
therans and  the  Arminians  agree  on  this  point.  They  both 
believe  that  the  "elect"  (those  whom  God  has  chosen  to  eter- 
nal life  because  he  has  certainly  foreseen  their  perseverance  in 
faith  and  obedience  to  the  end)  can  not  finally  apostatize.  The 
true  question  between  them  and  the  Calvinists,  therefore,  is  not 
whether  the  "elect,"  but  whether  those  once  truly  "regenerate 
and  justified  "  can  finally  apostatize  and  perish. 

5.  What  objection  is  urged  against  tJie  orthodox  doctrine  on  the 
ground  of  tJiefree  agency  of  man? 

Those  who  deny  the  certainty  of  the  final  perseverance  of 
the  saints  hold  the  false  theory  that  liberty  of  the  will  consists 
in  indifference,  or  the  power  of  contrary  choice,  and  conse- 
quently that  certainty  is  inconsistent  with  liberty.  This  fal- 
lacy is  disproved  above,  Chap.  XV.,  see  especially  Ques.  25,  26. 

That  God  does  govern  the  free  acts  of  his  creatures,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  is  clear  from  history  and  prophecy,  from  uni- 
versal Christian  consciousness  and  experience,  and  from  Script- 
ure.—Acts  ii.  23;  Eph.  i.  11;  Phil.  ii.  13;  Prov.  xxi.  1. 

That  he  does  secure  the  final  perseverance  of  his  people  in  a 
manner  perfectly  consistent  with  their  free  agency  is  also  clear. 
He  changes  their  affections  and  thus  determines  the  will  by  its 
own  free  spontaniety.  He  brings  them  into  the  position  of 
children  by  adoption,  surrounding  them  with  all  of  the  sources 
and  instruments  of  sanctifying  influence,  and  when  they  sin  he 


644  PERSEVERANCE. 

carefully  chastises  and  restores  them.  Hence  the  doctrine  of 
Scripture  is  not  that  a  man  who  has  once  truly  believed  is 
secure  of  ultimate  salvation,  subsequently  feel  and  act  as  he 
may;  but,  on  the  contrary,  that  God  secures  the  ultimate  sal- 
vation of  every  one  who  is  once  truly  united  to  his  Son  by 
faith,  by  securing,  thi-ough  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  his 
most  free  perseverance  in  Christian  feeling  and  obedience  to 
the  end. 

6.  What  objection  is  urged  against  the  orthodox  doctrine  upon 
the  ground  of  its  supposed  unfavorable  influence  upon  morality  ? 

The  objection  charged  is,  that  this  doctrine,  "once  in  grace 
always  in  grace,"  must  naturally  lead  to  carelessness,  through 
a  false  sense  of  security  in  our  present  position,  and  of  confi- 
dence that  God  will  secure  our  final  salvation  independently 
of  our  own  agency. 

Although  it  is  certain,  on  the  part  of  God,  that  if  we  are 
elected  and  called,  we  shall  be  saved;  yet  it  requires  constant 
watchfulness,  and  diligence,  and  prayer  to  make  that  calling 
and  election  sure  to  us. — 2  Pet.  i.  10.  That  God  powerfully 
works  with  us,  and  therefore  secures  for  us  success  in  our  con- 
test with  sin,  is  in  Scripture  urged  as  a  powerful  reason  not  for 
sloth,  but  for  diligence. — Phil.  ii.  13.  The  orthodox  doctrine 
does  not  affirm  certainty  of  salvation  because  we  have  once 
believed,  but  certainty  of  perseverance  in  holiness  if  we  have 
truly  believed,  which  perseverance  in  holiness,  therefore,  in 
opposition  to  all  weaknesses  and  temptations,  is  the  only  sure 
evidence  of  the  genuineness  of  past  experience,  or  of  the  validity 
of  our  confidence  as  to  our  future  salvation,  and  surely  such  an 
assurance  of  certainty  can  not  encourage  either  carelessness  or 
immorality. 

7.  What  objection  to  this  doctrine  is  founded  on  the  exhortations 
to  diligence;  and  on  tJie  learnings  of  danger  in  case  of  carelessness^ 
addressed  to  believers  in  the  Scriptures? 

The  objection  alleged  is,  that  these  exhortations  and  warn- 
ings necessarily  imply  the  contingency  of  the  believer's  salva- 
tion, as  conditioned  upon  the  believer's  continued  faithfulness, 
and  consequently  involving  liability  to  apostasy. 

We  answer — 

1st.  The  outward  word  necessarily  comes  to  all  men  alike, 
addressing  them  in  the  classes  in  which  they  regard  themselves 
as  standing;  and  as  professors,  or  "those  who  think  they  stand," 
are  many  of  them  self-deceived,  this  outward  word  truly  implies 
the  uncertainty  of  their  position  (as  far  as  man's  knowledge 
goes),  and  their  liability  to  full. 


OBJECTIONS    STATED  AND  ANSWERED.  545 

2d.  That  God  secures  the  perseverance  in  holiness  of  all 
his  true  people  by  the  use  of  means  adapted  to  their  nature  as 
rational,  moral,  and  free  agents.  Viewed  in  themselves  they 
are  always,  as  God  warns  them,  unstable,  and  therefore,  as  he 
exhorts  them,  they  must  diligently  cleave  to  his  grace.  It 
is  always  true,  also,  that  if  they  apostatize  they  shall  be  lost; 
but  by  means  of  these  very  threatenings  his  Spirit  graciously 
secures  them  from  apostasy. 

8.  What  special  texts  are  relied  upon  to  rebut  the  arguments  of 
the  orthodox  upon  this  subject  ? 

Ezek.  xviii.  24;  Matt.  xiii.  20,  21;  2  Pet.  ii.  20,  21,  and  espe- 
cially Heb.  vi.  4-6;  x.  26. 

All  of  these  passages  may  be  naturally  explained  in  perfect 
consistency  with  the  orthodox  doctrine  which  is  supported  upon 
that  wide  range  of  Scripture  evidence  we  have  set  forth  above, 
Question  2.  They  present  either,  1st,  hypothetical  warnings 
of  the  consequences  of  apostasy  with  the  design  of  preventing 
it,  by  showing  the  natural  consequences  of  indifference  and  of 
sin,  and  the  necessity  for  earnest  care  and  effort;  or,  2d,  they 
indicate  the  dreadful  consequences  of  misimproving  or  of  abus- 
ing the  influences  of  common  grace,  which,  although  involving 
great  responsibility,  nevertheless  come  short  of  a  radical  change 
of  nature  or  genuine  conversion. 

9.  What  argument  do  the  opponents  of  this  doctrine  urge  from 
Bible  examples  and  from  our  oion  daily  experience  of  apostates  ? 

They  cite  from  the  Scriptures  such  instances  as  that  of  David 
and  Peter,  and  they  refer  to  the  many  examples  of  the  apos- 
tasy of  well-accredited  professors,  with  which,  alas !  we  are  all 
familiar. 

All  these  examples,  however,  fall  evidently  under  one  of 
two  classes,  either,  1st,  they  were  from  the  beginning  without 
the  real  power  of  godliness,  although  bearing  so  fair  an  appear- 
ance of  life  in  the  sight  of  their  fellow-men,  Rom.  ii.  28 ;  ix.  6 ; 
1  John  ii.  19;  Rev.  iii.  1;  or,  2d,  they  are  true  believers  who, 
because  of  the  temporary  withdrawal  of  restraining  grace,  have 
been  allowed  to  backslide  for  a  time,  while  in  every  such  case 
they  are  graciously  restored,  and  that  generally  by  chastise- 
ment.— Rev.  iii.  19.  Of  this  class  were  David  and  Peter.  No 
true  Christian  is  capable  of  deliberate  apostasy;  his  furthest 
departure  from  righteousness  being  occasioned  by  the  sudden 
impulse  of  passion  or  fear. — Matt.  xxiv.  24 ;  Luke  xxii.  31. 


G46  PERSEVERANCE. 


Authoritative  Statements  of  Church  Doctrine. 

Romish  Doctrine. 

"Cone.  Trident."  Sess.  6,  ch.  15. — "It  is  to  be  maintained  that  the 
received  grace  of  justification  is  lost,  not  only  by  infidelity,  whereby 
even  faith  itself  is  lost,  but  also  by  any  other  mortal  sin  whatever,  though 
faith  be  not  lost." 

lb.,  can.  23. — "If  any  one  saith,  that  a  man  once  justified  can  sin  no 
more,  nor  lose  grace,  and  that  therefore  he  that  falls  and  sins  was  never 
truly  justified    ...     let  him  be  anathema. " 

lb.,  chap.  11. — "For,  although,  during  this  mortal  life,  men  how 
holy  and  just  soever,  at  times  fall  at  least  into  light  and  daily  sins, 
which  are  also  called  venial,  not  therefore  do  they  cease  to  be  just. " 

lb.,  Sess.  14,  ch.  5. — "For  venial  sins,  whereby  we  are  not  excluded 
from  the  grace  of  God,  and  into  which  we  fall  more  frequently,  although 
they  be  rightly  and  profitably,  and  without  any  presumption,  declared  in 
confession,  as  the  custom  of  pious  persons  demonstrates,  yet  may  they 
be  omitted  without  guilt,  and  be  expiated  by  many  other  remedies.  But, 
whereas  all  mortal  sins,  even  those  of  thought,  render  men  children  of 
wrath,  and  enemies  of  God,  it  is  necessary  to  seek  also  for  the  pardon  of 
them  all  from  God,  with  a  modest  and  open  confession. " 

Belkirmin,  "  De  Amiss.  Gra."  Sess.  14,  cap.  5. — "  (1.)  Venial  sin  is 
distinguished  from  mortal  sin,  as  of  its  own  nature,  and  without  any 
relation  to  the  predestination  or  the  mercy  of  God,  or  to  the  state  of  the 
regenerate,  deserving  a  certain  but  not  an  eternal  punishment.  (2. )  These 
sins  are  either  venial  from  their  own  nature,  having  for  their  object  a 
thing  evil  and  inordinate,  but  which  does  not  oppose  the  love  of  God  and 
of  our  neighbor — as  an  idle  word,  or  they  are  venial  from  the  imperfec- 
tion of  the  action,  i.  e.,  (a)  such  as  are  not  perfectly  voluntary  (delib- 
erate), as  arising  from  a  sudden  movement  of  cupidity  or  anger,  and 
(b)  such  as  relate  to  trifles,  as  the  theft  of  one  obolus. " 

Lutheran  Doctrine. 

"Formula  Concordice"  p.  705. — "That  false  opinion  is  to  be  earnestly 
confuted  and  rejected,  which  certain  feign,  that  faith,  and  realized  jus- 
tification, and  salvation  itself,  can  not  be  lost  by  any  sins  or  crimes 
whatsoever." 

lb.,  p.  591. — "We  condemn  that  dogma,  that  faith  in  Christ  is  not 
lost,  and  that  the  Holy  Spirit  continues  to  dwell  none  the  less  in  a  man, 
although  he  knowingly  and  willingly  sins,  and  that  the  sanctified  and 
elect  retain  the  Holy  Spirit,  although  they  fall  into  adulteries  or  other 
crimes,  and  persevere  in  them." 

"Apol.  Aug.  Covf."  p.  71. — "Faith  can  not  coexist  with  mortal  sin." 

lb.,  p.  86. — "  That  faith,  which  receives  remission  of  sins  .  .  does 
not  remain  in  those  who  indulge  their  lusts,  neither  can  it  coexist  with 
mortal  sin. " 

Reformed  Doctrine. 

"  Can.  of  the  Synod  of  Dort,"  ch.  5,  c.  3. — "Because  of  the  remains 
of  indwelling  sin  .  .  .  the  converted  could  not  continue  in  this 
grace,  if  they  were  left  to  their  own  strength.  But  God  is  faithful,  who 
confirms  them  in  the  grace  once  mercifully  conferred  on  them,  and  pow- 
erfully preserves  them  in  the  same,  even  unto  the  end.  Can.  4. — But 
though  that  power  of  God,  confirming  the  truly  faithful  in  grace,  and 
preserving  them,  is  greater  than  what  can  be  overcome  by  the  flesh,  yet 
the  converted  are  not  always  so  influenced  and  moved  by  God,  that  they 
can  not  depart  in  certain  particular  actions,  from  the  leading  of  grace. 


AUTHORITATIVE    STATEMENTS.  547 

and  be  seduced  by  the  lusts  of  the  flesh,  and  obey  them.     They  may  fall 

even  into  grievous  and  atrocious  sins Can.  5. — But  by  such 

enormous  sins  they  exceedingly  offend  God,  they  incur  the  guilt  of 
death,  they  grieve  the  Holy  Spirit,  they  interrupt  the  exercise  of  faith, 
they  most  grievously  wound  conscience,  and  they  sometimes  lose  for  a 
time  the  sense  of  grace,  until  by  serious  repentance  returning  into  the 
■way,  the  paternal  countenance  of  God  again  shines  upon  them.  Can.  6. 
For  God,  who  is  rich  in  mercy,  from  his  immutable  purpose  of  election, 
does  not  wholly  take  away  his  Holy  Spirit  from  his  own,  even  in  lamen- 
table falls,  nor  does  he  so  permit  them  to  glide  down  that  they  should 
fall  from  the  grace  of  adoption,  and  the  state  of  justification,  or  commit 
the  sin  unto  death,  or  against  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  being  deserted  by 
him,  they  should  cast  themselves  headlong  into  eternal  destruction.  .  . 
Can.  8. — So  that  not  by  their  own  merits  or  strength,  but  by  the  gratui- 
tous mercy  of  God  they  (the  elect)  obtain  it,  that  they  neither  totally 
fall  from  faith  and  grace,  nor  finally  continue  in  their  falls  and  perish. " 
"  West.  Con/.  Faith,"  ch.  17,  \  1. — "They  whom  God  hath  accepted 
in  his  Beloved,  effectually  called  and  sanctified  by  his  Spirit,  can  neither 
totally  nor  finally  fall  away  from  the  state  of  grace;  but  shall  certainly 
persevere  therein  to  the  end,  and  be  eternally  saved,  g  2. — This  perse- 
verance of  the  saints  depends  not  upon  their  own  free-will,  but  upon  the 
immutability  of  the  decree  of  election,  flowing  from  the  free  and  un- 
changeable love  of  God  the  Father;  upon  the  efficacy  of  the  merit  and 
intercession  of  Jesus  Christ;  the  abiding  of  the  Spirit  and  of  the  seed  of 
God  within  them,  and  the  nature  of  the  covenant  of  grace:  from  all 
which  ariseth  also  the  certainty  and  infallibility  thereof." 


XXXVII. 

DEATH,  AND  THE  STATE  OF  THE  SOUL  AFTER  DEATH. 

1.  What  department  of  theology  are  we  now  entering,  and  what 
subjects  are  embraced  in  it  ? 

The  department  of  Eschatology  or  the  discussion  of  last 
things  rd  s'^xara.  It  embraces  the  subjects  of  death,  the  state 
of  the  soul  after  death,  the  second  advent  of  Christ,  the  resur- 
rection of  the  dead,  the  final  judgment,  the  end  of  the  world, 
heaven  and  hell. 

2.  By  what  forms  of  expression  is  death  described  in  the  Bible  ? 

A  departure  out  of  this  world. — 2  Tim.  iv.  6.  A  going  the 
way  of  all  the  earth. — Josh,  xxiii.  14.  A  being  gathered  to 
one's  fathers,  Judges  ii.  10;  and  to  one's  people,  Deut.  xxxii. 
50.  A  dissolving  the  earthly  house  of  this  tabernacle. — 2  Cor. 
v.  1.  A  returning  to  the  dust. — Eccle.  xii.  7.  A  sleep. — John 
xi.  11.  A  giving  up  the  ghost. — Acts  v.  10.  A  being  absent 
from  the  body  and  present  with  the  Lord. — 2  Cor.  v.  8.  Sleep- 
ing in  Jesus. — 1  Thess.  iv.  14. 

3.  What  is  death  ? 

The  suspension  of  the  personal  union  between  the  body 
and  the  soul,  followed  by  the  resolution  of  the  body  into  its 
chemical  elements,  and  the  introduction  of  the  soul  into  that 
separate  state  of  existence  which  may  be  assigned  to  it  by  its 
Creator  and  Judge. — Eccle.  xii.  7. 

4.  How  does  death  stand  related  to  sin  ? 

The  entire  penalty  of  the  law,  including  all  the  spiritual, 
physical,  and  eternal  penal  consequences  of  sin,  is  called  death 
m  Scripture.  The  sentence  was,  "The  day  thou  eatest  thereof 
thou  shalt  surely  die." — Gen.  ii.  17;  Rom.  v.  12.  That  this  in- 
cluded natural  death  is  proved  by  Horn.  v.  13,  14;  and  from 
the  fact  that  when  Christ  bore  the  penalty  of  the  law  it  was 
necessary  for  him  to  die. — Heb.  ix.  22. 


IMMORTALITY   OF    THE    SOUL.  549 

5.  Why  do  (lie  justified  die  ? 

Justification  changes  the  entire  federal  relation  of  its  sub* 
ject  to  the  law,  and  raises  him  forever  above  all  the  penal  con- 
sequences of  sin.  Death,  therefore,  while  remaining  a  part  of 
the  penalty  of  the  unsatisfied  law  in  relation  to  the  unjust,  is 
like  all  other  afflictions  changed,  in  relation  to  the  justified, 
into  an  element  of  improving  discipline.  It  is  made  necessary 
for  them  from  the  present  constitution  of  the  body,  while  it  is 
to  both  body  and  soul  the  gateway  of  heaven.  They  are  made 
free  from  its  sting  and  fear. — 1  Cor.  xv.  55,  57;  Heb.  ii.  15. 
They  are  now  "blessed"  in  death  because  they  die  "in  the 
Lord,"  Rev.  xiv.  13,  and  they  shall  at  last  be  completely  deliv- 
ered from  its  power  when  the  last  enemy  shall  be  destroyed. 
1  Cor.  xv.  26. 

6.  What  evidence  have  ive  of  tJie  immateriality  of  tl\e  soul,  and 
what  argument  may  be  derived  from  that  source  in  proof  of 'its  con- 
tinued existence  after  death  ? 

For  the  evidence  establishing  the  immateriality  of  the  soul 
see  Chap.  II.,  Question  18. 

Now  although  the  continued  existence  of  any  creature  must 
depend  simply  upon  the  will  of  its  Creator,  that  will  may  either 
be  made  known  by  direct  revelation,  or  inferred  in  any  partic- 
ular instance  by  analogical  reasoning  from  what  is  known  of 
his  doings  in  other  cases.  As  far  as  this  argument  from  anal- 
ogy goes  it  decidedly  confirms  the  belief  that  a  spiritual  sub- 
stance is,  as  such,  immortal.  The  entire  range  of  human  ex- 
perience fails  to  make  us  acquainted  with  a  single  instance  of 
the  annihilation  of  an  atom  of  matter,  i.  e.,  of  matter  as  such. 
Material  bodies,  organized  or  chemically  compounded,  or  mere 
mechanical  aggregations,  we  observe  constantly  coming  into 
existence,  and  in  turn  passing  away,  yet  never  through  the  an- 
nihilation of  their  elementary  constituents  or  component  parts, 
but  simply  from  the  dissolution  of  that  relation  which  these 
parts  had  temporarily  sustained  to  each  other.  Spirit,  how- 
ever, is  essentially  simple  and  single,  and  therefore  incapable 
of  that  dissolution  of  parts  to  which  material  bodies  are  subject. 
We  infer,  therefore,  that  spirits  are  immortal  since  they  can 
not  be  subject  to  that  only  form  of  death  of  which  we  have 
any  knowledge. 

7.  What  argument  in  favor  of  the  immortality  of  the  soul  may 
be  derived  from  its  imperfect  development  in  this  ivorld  ? 

In  every  department  of  organized  life  every  individual  crea« 
ture,  in  its  normal  state,  tends  to  grow  toward  a  condition 


550  STATE    OF    THE    SOUL    AFTER    DEATH. 

of  complete  development,  which  is  the  perfection  of  its  kind 
The  acorn  both  prophesies  and  grows  toward  the  oak.  Every 
human  being,  however,  is  conscious  that  in  this  life  he  never 
attains  that  completeness  which  the  Creator  contemplated  in 
the  ideal  of  his  type;  he  has  faculties  undeveloped,  capacities 
unfulfilled,  natural  desires  unsatisfied;  he  knows  he  was  de- 
signed to  be  much  more  than  he  is,  and  to  fill  a  much  higher 
sphere.  As  the  prophetic  reason  of  the  Creator  makes  provi- 
sion for  the  butterfly  through  the  instinct  of  the  caterpillar,  so 
the  same  Creator  reveals  the  immortal  existence  of  the  soul  in 
a  higher  sphere  by  means  of  its  conscious  limitations  and  in- 
stinctive movements  in  this. 

8.  What  argument  on  this  subject  may  be  derived  from  tlie  dis- 
tributive justice  of  God  ? 

It  is  an  invariable  judgment  of  natural  reason,  and  a  funda- 
mental doctrine  of  the  Bible,  that  moral  good  is  associated  with 
happiness,  and  moral  evil  with  misery,  by  the  unchangeable 
nature  and  purpose  of  God.  But  the  history  of  all  individuals 
and  communities  alike  establishes  the  fact  that  this  life  is  not 
a  state  of  retribution ;  that  here  wickedness  is  often  associated 
with  prosperity,  and  moral  excellence  with  sorrow;  we  must 
hence  conclude  that  there  is  a  future  state  in  which  all  that 
appears  at  present  inconsistent  with  the  justice  of  God  shall 
be  adjusted. — See  Ps.  lxxiii. 

9.  How  do  the  operations  of  conscience  point  to  a  future  state  ? 

Conscience  is  the  voice  of  God  in  the  soul,  which  witnesses 
to  our  sinfulness  and  ill-desert,  and  to  his  essential  justice. 
Except  in  the  case  of  those  who  have  found  refuge  in  the 
righteousness  of  Christ,  every  man  feels  that  his  moral  rela- 
tions to  God  are  never  settled  in  this  life,  and  hence  the  char- 
acteristic testimony  of  the  human  conscience,  in  spite  of  great 
individual  differences  as  to  light,  sensibility,  etc.,  has  always 
been  coincident  with  the  word  of  God,  that  "after  death  comes 

the  JUDGMENT." 

10.  How  is  this  doctrine  establisJied  by  the  general  consent  of 
mankind  ? 

This  has  been  the  universal  faith  of  all  men,  of  all  races, 
and  in  all  ages.  Universal  consent,  like  every  universal  effect, 
must  be  referred  to  an  equally  universal  cause,  and  this  con- 
sent, uniform  among  men  differing  in  every  other  possible  re 
spect,  can  be  referred  to  no  common  origin  other  than  the  con- 
stitution of  man's  common  nature,  which  is  the  testimony  of 
his  Maker. 


THE    OLD    TESTAMENT  DOCTRINE.  551 

11.  Show  that  the  Old  Testament  teaches  tJie  same  distinction 
"between  soul  and  body  that  is  taught  in  the  New  Testament. 

1st.  In  the  account  of  the  creation.  The  body  was  formed 
of  the  dust  of  the  earth,  and  the  soul  in  the  image  of  the  Al- 
mighty.— Gen.  i.  26;  ii.  7. 

2d.  In  the  definition  of  death. — Eccle.  xii.  7.  "  Then  shall 
the  dust  return  to  the  earth  as  it  was,  and  the  spirit  shall  re- 
turn to  God  who  gave  it." — See  also  Eccle.  iii.  21. 

12.  What  does  the  Old  Testament  teach  concerning  Sheol?  and 
hoiu  ns  it  shown,  from  the  usage  of  that  word,  that  the  immortality 
of  the  voul  ivas  a  doctrine  of  the  ancient  covenant  ? 

Sheol  is  derived  from  the  verb  7NK>>  to  ask,  expressing  the 
sense  of  our  English  proverb,  that  the  " grave  crieth  give,  give." 
It  is  used  in  the  Old  Testament  to  signify,  in  a  vague  and  gen- 
eral sense,  the  state  of  the  departed,  both  the  good  and  bad, 
intermediate  between  death  and  the  resurrection  of  the  right- 
eous (Hosea  xiii.  14),  generally  invested  with  gloomy  associa- 
tions, and  indefinitely  referred  to  the  lower  parts  of  the  earth. 
Deut.  xxxii.  22;  Amos  ix.  2.  Thus  it  is  used  for  grave  as  the 
receptacle  of  the  body  after  death  (Gen.  xxxvii.  35;  Job  xiv.  13), 
but  principally  to  designate  the  receptacle  of  departed  spirits, 
without  explicit  reference  to  any  division  between  the  stations 
allotted  to  the  righteous  and  the  wicked.  That  they  were  active 
and  conscious  in  this  state  appears  to  be  indicated  by  what  is 
revealed  of  Samuel. — 1  Sam.  xxviii.  7-20;  Is.  xiv.  15-17.  With 
regard  to  the  good,  however,  the  residence  in  Sheol  was  looked 
upon  only  as  intermediate  between  death  and  a  happy  resur- 
rection.— Ps.  xlix.  15.  In  their  treatment  of  this  whole  subject, 
the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  rather  take  the  continued  exist- 
ence of  the  soul  for  granted,  than  explicitly  assert  it. — Fair- 
bairn's  "Herm.  Manual";  "Josephus'  Ant.,"  xviii.,  1. 

13.  What  is  the  purport  of  our  Saviours  argument  on  this  sub- 
ject against  the  Sadducees? 

Luke  xx.  37,  38.  Long  after  the  death  of  Abraham,  Isaac, 
and  Jacob,  Jehovah  designated  himself  to  Moses  as  their  God. 
Ex.  iii.  6.  But,  argues  Christ  against  the  Sadducee  who  denied 
the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  "  he  is  the  God,  not  of  the  dead, 
but  of  the  living."  This  more  immediately  proves  the  immor- 
tality of  their  souls,  but  as  God  is  the  covenant  God  of  persons, 
and  as  the  persons  of  these  patriarchs  included  alike  body  and 
soul,  this  argument  likewise  establishes  the  ultimate  immor- 
tality of  the  body  also,  i.  e.,  of  the  entire  person. 


652  STATE    OF    THE    SOUL    AFTER    DEATH. 

14.  What  passages  of  the  Old  Testament  assert  or  imply  the 
hope  of  a  state  of  blessedness  after  death  ? 

Num.  xxiii.  10;  Job  xix.  26,  27;  Ps.  xvi.  9-11;  xvii.  15; 
xlix.  14,  15;  lxxiii.  24^26;  Is.  xxv.  8;  xxvi.  19;  Hosea  xiii.  14; 
Dan.  xii.  2,  3,  13. 

15.  What  other  evidence  does  tlue  Old  Testament  afford  of  tltt 
continued  existence  of  the  soul  ? 

1st.  The  translations  of  Enoch  and  Elijah,  and  the  tempo- 
rary reappearance  of  Samuel. — Gen.  v.  24 ;  Heb.  xi.  5 ;  2  Kings 
ii.  11;  1  Sam.  xxviii.  7-20. 

2d.  The  command  to  abstain  from  the  arts  of  necromancy 
implies  the  prevalent  existence  of  a  belief  that  the  dead  still 
continue  in  being  in  another  state. — Deut.  xviii.  11,  12. 

3d.  In  their  symbolical  system  Canaan  represents  the  per- 
manent inheritance  of  Christ's  people,  and  the  entire  purpose 
of  the  whole  Old  Testament  revelation,  as  apprehended  by  Old 
Testament  believers,  had  respect  to  a  future  existence  and  in- 
heritance after  deateh.  This  is  directly  asserted  in  the  New 
Testament. — Acts  xxvi.  6-8 ;  Heb.  xi.  10-16 ;  Eph.  i.  14. 

16.  What  does  the  New  Testament  teach  of  the  state  of  tJw  soul 
immediately  after  death  ? 

"The  souls  of  the  righteous,  being  made  perfect  in  holiness, 
are  received  into  the  highest  heavens,  where  they  behold  the 
face  of  God  in  light  and  glory,  waiting  for  the  full  redemption 
of  their  bodies."— Luke  xxiii.  43;  2  Cor.  v.  6,  8;  Phil.  i.  23,  24. 
"And  the  souls  of  the  wicked  are  cast  into  hell,  where  they  re- 
main in  torment  and  utter  darkness,  reserved  to  the  judgment 
of  the  great  day." — Luke  xvi.  23,  24;  Jude  v.  6,  7.  "Confes- 
sion of  Faith,"  Chap,  xxxii.,  §  1. 

This  statement  represents  the  doctrine  of  the  Lutheran  and 
Reformed  churches. 

It  includes  the  following  points:  1st.  The  state  of  souls 
between  death  and  the  resurrection  may  properly  be  called 
intermediate  when  vieAved  with  relation  to  the  states  which 
precede  and  follow.  2d.  Whether  there  be  also  an  intermedi- 
ate place  or  not  the  Scriptures  do  not  definitely  declare,  but 
they  suggest  it. — See  below,  Ch.  XL.,  Ques.  3.  3d.  The  souls 
both  of  the  righteous  and  the  lost  continue  during  this  state 
active  and  conscious.  4th.  The  moral  and  spiritual  character 
and  destiny  of  each  is  irrevocably  decided  at  death  either  for 
good  or  evil.  5th.  The  righteous  are  immediately  made  per- 
fect in  holiness.  6th.  They  pass  at  once  and  remain  during 
the  whole  period  in  the  presence  of  Christ.     7th.  This  interme* 


HADES,    PARADISE,    AND    GEHENNA.  553 

diate  differs  from  the  final  state  of  the  redeemed — (1.)  Because 
of  the  absence  of  the  body.  (2.)  Because  redemption  is  not  yet 
realized  in  its  final  stage. 

17.  What  is  the  signification  and  usage  of  the  word  aiSriz,  Hades, 
in  Scripture? 

"Aid?/?,  from  a  primitive,  and  £8siv,  designates  generally  the 
invisible  world  inhabited  by  the  spirits  of  dead  men.  Among 
the  ancient  classical  heathen,  this  invisible  world  was  regarded 
as  consisting  of  two  contrasted  regions,  the  one  called  Elysium, 
the  abode  of  the  blessed  good,  and  the  other  Tartarus,  the  abode 
of  the  vicious  and  miserable. 

It  was  used  by  the  authors  of  the  Septuagint  to  translate 
the  Hebrew  word  Sheol,  compare  Acts  ii.  27,  and  Ps.  xvi.  10. 
In  the  New  Testament  this  word  occurs  only  eleven  times. 
Matt.  xi.  23;  xvi.  18;  Luke  x.  15;  xvi.  23;  Acts  ii.  27,  31; 
1  Cor.  xv.  55 ;  Rev.  i.  18 ;  vi.  8 ;  xx.  13,  14.  In  every  case, 
except  1  Cor.  xv.  55,  where  the  more  critical  editions  of  the 
original  substitute  the  word  Oct  rare  in  the  place  of  a  5  rj,  hades 
is  translated  hell,  and  certainly  always  represents  the  invisible 
world  as  under  the  dominion  of  Satan,  as  opposed  to  the  king- 
dom of  Christ,  and  as  finally  subdued  under  his  victorious 
power.     See  Fairbairn's  "  Herm.  Manual." 

18.  What  is  the  signification  and  usage  of  the  words  irapddetdos 
and  yesvva? 

IlapdSeidoS,  Paradise,  derived  from  some  oriental  language, 
and  adopted  into  both  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  languages,  sig- 
nifies parks,  pleasure  gardens. — Neh.  ii.  8;  Eccle.  ii.  5.  The 
Septuagint  translators  use  this  word  to  represent  the  garden 
of  Eden. — Gen.  ii.  8,  etc.  It  occurs  only  three  times  in  the  New 
Testament,  Luke  xxiii.  43;  2  Cor.  xii.  4;  Rev.  ii.  7;  where  the 
context  proves  that  it  refers  to  the  "third  heavens,"  the  garden 
of  the  Lord,  in  which  grows  the  "  tree  of  life,"  which  is  by  the 
river  which  flows  out  of  the  throne  of  God  and  of  the  Lamb. 
Rev.  xxii.  1,  2. 

riEwa  is  a  compound  Hebrew  word,  expressed  in  Greek 
letters,  signifying  "Valley  of  Hinnom,  Josh.  xv.  8,  skirting 
Jerusalem  on  the  south,  running  westward  from  the  valley  of 
Jehosaphat,  under  Mount  Zion.  Here  was  established  the  idol- 
atrous worship  of  Moloch,  to  whom  infants  were  burned  in  sac- 
rifice.— 1  Kings  xi.  7.  This  worship  was  broken  up  and  the  place 
desecrated  by  Josiah,  2  Kings  xxiii.  10-14,  after  which  it  appears 
to  have  become  the  receptacle  for  all  the  filth  of  the  city,  and 
of  the  dead  bodies  of  animals,  and  of  malefactors,  to  consume 
which  fires  would  appear  to  have  been  from  time  to  time  kept 


554  STATE    OF    THE    SOUL    AFTER    DEATH. 

up,  hence  called  Tophet,  an  abomination,  a  vomit,  Jer.  vii.  31." 
Robinson's  "  Greek  Lex."  By  a  natural  figure,  therefore,  this 
word  was  used  to  designate  the  place  of  final  punishment,  forci- 
bly carrying  with  it  the  idea  of  pollution  and  misery.  It  occurs 
twelve  times  in  the  New  Testament,  and  always  to  signify  the 
place  of  final  torment.— Matt.  v.  22,  29,  30;  x.  28;  xviii.  9; 
xxiii.  15,  33 ;  Mark  ix.  43,  47 ;  Luke  xii.  5 ;  James  iii.  6. 

19.  What  various  views  are  maintained  as  to  the  intermediate 
state  of  the  souls  of  men  hctween  death  and  the  judgment  ? 

1st.  Many  Protestants,  especially  of  the  Church  of  England, 
retaining  the  classical  sense  of  the  word  Hades,  as  equivalent 
to  the  Jewish  Sheol  (as  given  above,  Question  12),  hold  that 
there  is  an  intermediate  region,  consisting  of  two  distinct  de- 
partments, in  one  or  other  of  which  the  disembodied  souls,  both 
of  the  lost  and  of  the  redeemed,  respectively  await  the  resur- 
rection of  their  bodies,  the  award  of  judgment,  and  their  trans- 
lation to  their  final  abodes  of  bliss  or  misery.  They  differ  from 
the  common  Protestant  doctrine  chiefly — (1.)  In  positively  as- 
serting that  the  place  as  well  as  the  state  is  intermediate. 
(2.)  In  asserting  that  it  is  situated  "under"  in  respect  to  this 
world.  (3.)  In  holding  that  it  is  not  the  "highest  heavens" 
where  God  manifests  his  special  presence,  and  where  Christ 
habitually  abides. — See  the  Rev.  E.  H.  Bickersteth's  "  Yesterday, 
To-day,  and  Forever,"  and  "  Hades  and  Heaven,  or  State  of  the 
Blessed  Dead." 

2d.  For  the  complete  statement  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Ro- 
manists, see  below,  Question  22. 

3d.  Materialists  and  some  Socinians  hold  that  the  souls  of 
men  remain  in  a  state  of  unconsciousness  or  suspended  life  from 
death  until  the  moment  of  the  resurrection. 

This  opinion  is  also  held  by  the  advocates  of  the  ultimate 
annihilation  of  the  wicked,  and  advocated  most  ably  by  C.  F. 
Hudson  in  America,  and  as  probable  by  the  late  Archbishop 
Whately  in  England  ("View  of  Sc.  Concerning  a  Future  State"). 

The  arguments  are — (1)  We  have  no  experience  and  can 
form  no  conception  of  conscious  mental  activity  in  a  disem- 
bodied state.  (2.)  That  the  Scriptural  evidence  relied  upon  for 
the  support  of  the  church  doctrine  is  obscure  and  inconclusive. 
(3.)  That  the  original  and  simple  meaning  of  the  word  death  is 
"extinction  of  being."  God  said  to  Adam,  "The  day  thou  eat- 
est  thereof  thou,"  not  thy  body,  but  thyself,  "  shall  surely  die." 
Matt.  x.  28.  (4.)  That  the  great  prominence  afforded  in  the 
New  Testament  to  the  future  resurrectioc  of  the  body,  as  the 
effect  of  redemption,  and  the  object  of  Christian  hope,  proves 
that  the  only  future  life  the  apostles  expected  was  subsequent 


THE    SOUL    CONSCIOUS   AND    ACTIVE.  555 

to  and  dependent  upon  that  event, — 1  Cor.  xv.  14.  (5.)  They 
quote  many  passages  to  prove  that  the  Scriptures  teach  that 
the  dead  remain  at  present  in  a  state  of  bodily  and  spiritual 
inactivity. — Ps.  vi.  5.  "For  in  death  there  is  no  remembrance 
of  thee,  in  the  grave  who  shall  give  thee  thanks." — Ps.  cxlvi.  4; 
Jer.  li.  57. 

This  doctrine  was  first  taught  by  certain  heretics  in  Arabia 
in  the  time  of  Origen,  called  Thnetopsychites.  It  was  revived 
as  an  opinion  of  some  theologians  in  the  thirteenth  and  four- 
teenth centuries,  but  condemned  by  the  University  of  Paris, 
1240,  and  by  Pope  Benedict  XII.,  1366.  It  was  revived  by 
some  Anabaptist  and  refuted  by  Calvin  in  his  "Psychopan- 
nychia,  etc."  It  has  never  been  held  by  any  church  or  per- 
manent school  of  theologians. 

Isaac  Taylor,  in  his  "Physical  Theory  of  Another  Life,"  ch. 
17,  concludes,  purely  on  Biblical  grounds,  that  the  intermediate 
state  of  redeemed  souls  is  one  "  not  of  unconsciousness  indeed, 
but  of  comparative  inaction,  or  of  suspended  energy.  A  tran- 
sition state  during  the  continuance  of  which  the  passive  facul- 
ties of  our  nature  rather  than  the  active  are  to  awake." 

20.  State  the  Scriptural  grounds  upon  ichicli  tJie  Protestant 
doctrine  stated  above,  Ques.  16,  rests. 

1st.  The  reappearance  of  Samuel  in  the  use  of  all  his  facul- 
ties.— 1  Sam.  xxviii.  7-20.  The  appearance  of  Moses  and  Elias 
at  the  transfiguration  of  Christ  on  the  mount. — Matt.  xvii.  3. 
Christ's  address  to  the  thief  upon  the  cross. — Luke  xxiii.  43. 
The  parable  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus. — Luke  xvi.  23,  24. 
The  prayer  of  dying  Stephen. — Acts  vii.  59.  In  2  Cor.  v.  1-8 
Paul  declares  that  to  be  at  home  in  the  body  is  to  be  absent 
from  the  Lord,  and  to  be  absent  from  the  body  is  to  be  present 
with  the  Lord,  and  hence  he  says  (Phil.  i.  21-24)  that  for  him 
to  die  is  gain,  and  that  he  was  in  a  strait  betwixt  two,  "having 
a  desire  to  depart  and  be  with  Christ,  which  is  far  better,  never- 
theless to  abide  in  the  flesh  is  more  needful  for  you."  He  de- 
clares (1  Thess.  v.  10)  that  the  sleep  of  death  is  a  living  together 
with  Christ. — See  also  Eph.  iii.  15;  Heb.  vi.  12-20;  Acts  i.  25; 
Jude  6,  7]  Heb.  xii.  23;  Rev.  v.  9;  vi.  9-11;  vii.  9,  and  xiv.  1,  3. 

21.  Hoio  can  it  be  sluoivn  that  the  Intermediate  State  does  not 
afford  a  further  probation  for  those  who  depart  from  this  life  out 
of  Christ  ? 

An  opinion  is  becoming  prevalent  among  some  classes  of 
Protestants  that  another  opportunity  for  repentance  and  faith 
will  be  afforded  to  Christless  souls  between  death  and  the  res- 
urrection.   That  this  is  unfounded  appears — 1st.  From  the  fact 


656  STATE    OF    THE    SOUL    AFTER    DEATH. 

that  it  is  nowhere  taught  in  Scripture.  It  is  a  hope  at  best 
suggested  by  the  wish,  but  without  any  foundation  in  the 
word  of  God.  Even  if  the  "  preaching  to  the  spirits  in  prison  " 
(1  Pet.  iii.  19)  is  rightly  referred  to  Christ's  personal  ministry 
in  the  sphere  of  the  intermediate  state,  it  certainly  did  not 
apply  to  those  who  had  rejected  him  on  earth,  and  it  would,  in 
that  case,  probably  apply  only  to  true  believers  under  the  Old 
Testament  Dispensation,  as  the  Catholic  Church  has  always 
taught.  2d.  The  assumption  is  built  upon  the  grossly  unchris- 
tian principle  that  God  owes  to  all  men  a  favorable  opportunity 
of  knowing  and  of  receiving  Christ.  If  this  were  true  the  gos- 
pel would  be  of  debt  and  not  of  grace.  3d.  All  the  teaching  of 
Christ  and  his  apostles  implies  the  contrary.  "  It  is  appointed 
unto  men  once  to  die,  but  after  this  the  judgment." — Heb.  ix.  27. 
"I  go  my  way,  and  ye  shall  seek  me,  and  shall  die  in  your  sins; 
whither  I  go  ye  can  not  come." — John  viii.  21.  "  And  besides 
all  this,  between  us  and  you  there  is  a  great  gulf  fixed,  so  that 
they  which  would  pass  from  hence  to  you,  can  not,  neither  can 
they  pass  to  us,  that  would  come  from  thence." — Luke  xvi.  26; 
Rev.  xxii.  11.  4th.  The  law  of  habit,  and  of  confirmed  moral 
character  would,  of  course,  even  if  conditions  of  repentance 
were  offered,  render  the  moral  state  of  the  sinner  far  more 
obdurate  and  hopeless  in  the  intermediate  state,  than  it  was 
during  the  earthly  life.  The  "  Hope,"  is  as  much  unwarranted 
by  reason  as  it  is  by  revelation. 

22.  What  do  Romanists  teach  with  regard  to  the  souls  of  men 
after  death? 

1st.  That  the  souls  of  unbaptized  infants  go  to  a  place  pre- 
pared expressly  for  them,  called  the  "limbus  infantum,"  where 
they  endure  no  positive  suffering,  although  they  do  not  enjoy 
the  vision  of  God.  This  is  placed  in  a  higher  part  of  the 
Infernus  which  the  fires  can  not  reach,  and  they  suffer  only 
a  poenam  damni  (penalty  of  loss),  and  have  no  share  in  the 
po27iam  sensus  (penalty  of  actual  suffering),  which  afflicts  adult 
sinners. 

2d.  That  all  unbaptized  adults,  and  all  those  who  subse- 
quently have  lost  the  grace  of  baptism  by  mortal  sin,  and  die 
unreconciled  to  the  church,  go  immediatel}'  to  hell. 

3d.  That  those  believers  who  have  attained  to  a  state  of 
Christian  perfection  go  immediately  to  heaven. 

4th.  That  the  great  mass  of  partially  sanctified  Christians 
dying  in  fellowship  with  the  church,  yet  still  encumbered  with 
imperfections,  go  to  purgatory,  where  they  suffer,  more  or  less 
intensely,  for  a  longer  or  shorter  period,  until  their  sins  are  both 
atoned  for  and  purged  out,  when  they  are  translated  to  heaven, 


ROMISH  DOCTRINE    STATED    AND    REFUTED.  557 

during  which  intermediate  period  they  may  be  efficiently  as- 
sisted by  the  prayers  and  labors  of  their  friends  on  earth. 

5th.  That  Old  Testament  believers  were  gathered  into  a  re- 
gion called  "limbics  patrum,"  called  "Abraham's  bosom,"  where 
they  remained  without  the  beatific  vision  of  God,  yet  without 
suffering,  until  Christ,  during  the  three  days  in  which  his  body 
lay  in  the  grave,  came  and  released  them. — 1  Pet.  iii.  19,  20. 
"Cat.  Rom.  Part  I.,  Chapter  vi.,  Question  3;  "Council  of 
Trent,"  Sess.  xxv.,  de  Purgatorio. 

As  to  purgatory  the  Council  of  Trent  settled  only  two  points, 
1st,  that  there  is  a  purgatory;  2d,  that  souls  therein  may  be  ben- 
efited by  the  prayers  and  mass  of  the  church  on  earth. 

It  is  generally  held,  however,  that  its  pains  are  both  nega- 
tive and  positive.  That  the  instrument  of  its  sufferings  is  ma- 
terial fire.  That  these  are  dreadful  and  indefinite  in  extent. 
That  satisfaction  may  be  rendered  in  this  world  on  much  easier 
terms.  That  while  there  their  souls  can  neither  incur  guilt  nor 
merit  any  thing,  they  can  alone  render  satisfaction  for  their 
sins  by  means  of  passive  sufferings. 

They  confess  that  this  doctrine  is  not  taught  directly  in 
Scripture,  but  maintain,  1st,  that  it  follows  necessarily  from 
their  general  doctrine  of  the  satisfaction  for  sins;  2d,  that 
Christ  and  the  apostles  taught  it  incidentally  as  they  did 
infant  baptism,  etc.     They  refer  to  Matt.  xii.  32 ;  1  Cor.  iii.  15. 

23.  Hoiv  may  tlie  Anti-  Christian  character  of  this  doctrine  be 
shoivn  ? 

1st.  It  confessedly  has  no  direct,  and  obviously  no  real 
foundation  in  Scripture.     This  consideration  alone  suffices. 

2d.  It  proceeds  upon  an  entirely  unchristian  view  of  the 
method  of  satisfying  divine  justice  for  sins.  (1.)  That  while 
Christ's  merits  are  infinite,  they  atone  only  for  original  sins. 
(2.)  That  each  believer  must  make  satisfaction  in  his  own  per- 
son for  sins  which  he  commits  after  baptism,  either  in  the  pains 
of  penance  or  of  purgatory.  This  is  contrary  to  all  the  Script- 
ures teach,  as  we  have  above  shown  under  their  respective 
heads,  (1)  as  to  the  satisfaction  rendered  to  justice  by  Christ; 
(2)  the  nature  of  justification ;  (3)  nature  of  sin;  (4)  relation 
of  the  sufferings  and  good  works  of  the  justified  man  to  the 
law;  (5)  state  of  the  souls  of  believers  after  death,  etc.,  etc. 

3d.  It  is  a  heathen  doctrine  derived  from  the  Egyptians 
through  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  and  currently  received  through 
the  Roman  empire. — Virgil's  "Eneid,"  vi.  739,  43. 

4th.  Its  practical  effects  have  always  been,  1st,  the  abject 
subjection  of  the  people  to  the  priesthood;  2d,  the  gross  de- 
moralization of  the  people.     The  church  is  the  self-appointed 


558  STATE    OF    THE    SOUL    AFTER    DEATH. 

depository  and  dispenser  of  the  superabundant  merits  of  Christ, 
and  the  supererogatory  merits  of  her  eminent  saints.  On  thia 
foundation  she  dispenses  the  pains  of  purgatory  to  those  who 
pay  for  past  sins,  or  sells  indulgences  to  those  who  pay  for  the  lib- 
erty to  sin  in  the  future.  Thus  the  people  sin  and  pay,  and  the 
priest  takes  the  money  and  remits  the  penalty.  The  figment  of 
a  purgatory  under  the  control  of  the  priest  is  the  main  source 
of  his  hold  upon  the  fears  of  the  people. — See  Ch.  XXXIL,  Q.  19. 

AUTHORITATIVE   STATEMENTS   OF  ChUECH  DOCTRINE. 

Bomish  Doctrine. 

"Cat.  of  Cone.  Trident,"  Pt.  1,  ch.  6,  \  3.— "There  is  also  the  fire  of 
purgatory,  in  which  the  souls  of  the  just  are  purified  by  punishment  for 
a  stated  time,  to  the  end  that  they  may  be  admitted  into  their  eternal 
country,  into  which  nothing  that  defileth  entereth.  And  of  the  truth  of  this 
doctrine  which  holy  Councils  declare  to  be  confirmed  by  the  testimonies 
of  Scripture,  and  by  apostolic  tradition,  the  pastor  will  have  occasion  to 
treat  more  diligently  and  frequently,  as  we  are  fallen  on  times  when  men 
endure  not  sound  doctrine." 

Bellarmin,  "Purgator,"  ii.  10. — "It  is  certain  that  in  purgatory,  as  there 
is  also  in  hell,  there  is  punishment  by  fire,  whether  that  fire  is  understood 
literally  or  metaphorically. "     His  own  opinion  is  that  it  is  corporeal  fire. 

Doctrine  of  the  Greek  Church. — "The  Longer  Catechism  of  the 
Orthodox  Catholic,  Eastern  Church,"  now  the  most  authoritative  stand- 
ard of  the  Orthodox  Graeco-Bussian  Church.  On  the  11th  Article,  Ques. 
372-377. — "From  death  till  the  general  resurrection  the  souls  of  the 
righteous  are  in  light  and  rest,  with  a  foretaste  of  eternal  happiness ;  but 
the  souls  of  the  wicked  are  in  a  state  the  reverse  of  this.  We  know  this 
because  it  is  ordained  that  the  perfect  retribution  according  to  works 
shall  be  received  by  the  perfect  man  after  the  resurrection  of  the  body 
and  God's  last  judgment. — 2  Tim.  ii.  8  and  2  Cor.  v.  10.  But  that  they 
have  a  foretaste  of  bliss  is  shown  on  the  testimony  of  Jesus  Christ,  who 
says  in  the  parable  that  the  righteous  Lazarus  was  immediately  after 
death  carried  into  Abraham's  bosom. — Luke  xvi.  22;  Phil.  i.  23.  But 
we  remark  of  such  souls  as  have  departed  with  faith,  but  without  having 
had  time  to  bring  forth  fruits  worthy  of  repentance,  that  they  may  be 
aided  towards  the  attainment  of  a  blessed  resurrection  by  prayers  offered 
in  their  behalf,  especially  such  as  are  offered  in  union  with  the  oblation 
of  the  bloodless  sacrifice  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  and  by  works 
of  mercy  done  in  faith  for  their  memory." 

Protestant  Doctrine. 

"Articles  of  Smalcald"  {Lutheran),  p.  307. — "Purgatory,  and  whatever 
of  religious  rite3,  worship,  or  business  pertains  to  it,  is  a  mere  disguise 
of  the  Devil." 

"Thirty-nine  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England"  Art.  22. — "The  Bom- 
ish doctrine  concerning  purgatory,  pardons,  worshipping  and  adoration 
as  well  as  of  images  as  of  relics,  and  also  invocation  of  saints,  is  a  fond 
thing,  vainly  invented,  and  grounded  upon  no  warranty  of  Scripture,  but 
rather  repugnant  to  the  word  of  God." 

"Shorter  Catechism  of  West.  Assembly,"  Ques.  37. — "The  souls  of  be- 
lievers are  at  their  death  made  perfect  in  holiness  and  do  immediately 
pass  into  glory ;  and  their  bodies  being  still  united  to  Christ,  do  rest  in 
their  graves  till  the  resurrection. 


CHAPTER    XXXVIII. 

THE  RESURRECTION. 

1.  What  is  the  meaning  of  the  phrase,  "resurrection  of  the 
dead"  and  "from  the  dead"  as  used  in  Scripture ? 

,Avd6va6i%  signifies  etymologically  "  a  rising  or  raising  up." 
It  is  used  in  Scripture  to  designate  the  future  general  raising, 
by  the  power  of  God,  of  the  bodies  of  all  men  from  the  sleep  of 
death. 

2.  What  Old  Testament  passages  bear  upon  this  subject  ? 
Job  xix.  25-27 ;  Ps.  xlix.  15 ;  Is.  xxvi.  19 ;  Dan.  xii.  1-3. 

3.  What  are  the  principal  passages  bearing  upon  this  subject  in 
the  New  Testament  ? 

Matt.  v.  29;  x.  28;  xxvii.  52,  53;  John  v.  28,  29;  vi.  39; 
Acts  ii.  25-34;  xiii.  34;  Rom.  viii.  11,  22,  23;  Phil.  iii.  20,  21; 
1  Thess.  iv.  13-17,  and  15th  chap,  of  1  Cor. 

4.  What  is  tJie  meaning  of  the  phrases,  6  dona  ipvxixov,  natural 
body,  and  6(3/.ia  Ttvev/iaTinov,  spiritual  body,  as  used  by  Paul,  1 
Cor.  xv.  44  ? 

The  word  ipvxy,  when  contrasted  with  itvlvpia,  always  desig- 
nates the  principle  of  animal  life,  as  distinguished  from  the 
principle  of  intelligence  and  moral  agency,  which  is  the  itvlvna. 
A  dcS^a  ipvxiHdv,  translated  natural  body,  evidently  means  a  body 
endowed  with  animal  life,  and  adapted  to  the  present  condition 
of  the  soul,  and  to  the  present  physical  constitution  of  the  world 
it  inhabits.  A  d&jua  nvevjuariKov,  translated  spiritual  body,  is  a 
body  adapted  to  the  use  of  the  soul  in  its  future  glorified  estate, 
and  to  the  moral  and  physical  conditions  of  the  heavenly  world, 
and  to  this  end  assimilated  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  dwells  in 
it,  to  the  glorified  body  of  Christ. — 1  Cor.  xv.  45-48. 

5.  How  does  it  appear  that  the  same  body  is  to  rise  tliat  is  de- 
posited in  tJie  grave  ? 

The  passages  of  Scripture  which  treat  of  this  subject  mak« 


"•i 


560  THE    RESURRECTION. 

it  plain  that  the  same  bodies  are  to  be  raised  that  arp  deposited 
in  the  grave,  by  the  phrases  by  which  they  designate  the  bod- 
ies raised:  1st,  "our  bodies,"  Phil.  iii.  21;  2d,  "this  corruptible," 
1  Cor.  xv.  53,  54;  3d,  "all  who  are  in  their  graves,"  John  v.  28; 
4th,  "they  who  are  asleep,"  1  Thess.  iv.  13-17;  5th,  "our  bod- 
ies are  the  members  of  Christ,"  1  Cor.  vi.  15 ;  6th,  our  resurrec- 
tion is  to  be  because  of  and  like  that  of  Christ,  which  was  of 
bis  identical  body. — John  xx.  27. 

6.  Hoiv  does  it  appear  that  the  final  resurrection  is  tc  be  simul- 
taneous and  general  ? 

See  below,  Chap.  XXXIX.,  Questions  9  and  10. 

7.  What  do  the  Scriptures  teach  concerning  the  nature  of  the 
resurrection  body? 

1st.  It  is  to  be  spiritual. — 1  Cor.  xv.  44.  See  above,  Ques- 
tion 4.  2d.  It  is  to  be  like  Christ's  body.— Phil.  iii.  21.  3d. 
Glorious,  incorruptible,  and  powerful. — 1  Cor.  xv.  54.  4th.  It 
shall  never  die. — Rev.  xxi.  4.  5th.  Never  be  given  in  marriage. 
Matt.  xxii.  30. 

8.  Hoiu  may  it  be  proved  that  the  material  body  of  Christ  rose 
from  the  dead? 

/  1st.  Christ  predicted  it. — John  ii.  19-21.  2d.  His  resurrec- 
tion is  referred  to  as  a  miraculous  attestation  of  the  truth  of 
his  mission,  but  unless  his  body  rose  literally  there  was  noth- 
ing miraculous  in  his  continued  life.  3d.  The  whole  language 
of  the  inspired  narratives  necessarily  implies  this,  the  rolling 
away  of  the  stone,  the  folding  up  of  the  garments,  etc.  4th. 
He  did  not  rise  until  the  third  day,  which  proves  that  it  was 
a  physical  change,  and  not  a  mere  continuance  of  spiritual  ex- 
istence.— 1  Cor.  xv.  4.  5th.  His  body  was  seen,  handled,  and 
examined,  for  the  space  of  forty  days,  in  order  to  establish  this 

^  very  fact. — Luke  xxiv.  39.     Dr.  Hodge. 

9.  How  can  the  materiality  of  Christ's  resurrection  body  be  rec- 
onciled with  ivhat  is  said  as  to  the  modes  of  its  manifestation,  and 
of  its  ascension  into  heaven  ? 

The  events  of  his  suddenly  appearing  and  vanishing  from 
sight,  recorded  in  Luke  xxiv.  31 ;  John  xx.  19 ;  Acts  i.  9,  were 
accomplished  through  a  miraculous  interference  with  the  ordi- 
nary laws  regulating  material  bodies,  of  the  same  kind  pre- 
cisely with  many  miracles  which  Jesus  wrought  in  his  body 
before  his  death,  e.  g.,  his  walking  on  the  sea. — Matt.  xiv.  25; 
John  vi.  9-14. 


OBJECTIONS    STATED   AND  ANSWERED.  561 

10.  How  does  the  resurrection  of  Christ  secure  and  illustrate 
that  of  his  people  ? 

Body  and  soul  together  constitute  the  one  person,  and  man 
in  his  entire  person,  and  not  his  soul  separately,  is  embraced 
in  both  the  covenants  of  works  and  of  grace,  and  in  federal  and 
vital  union  with  both  the  first  and  the  second  Adam.  Christ's 
resurrection  secures  ours — 1st.  Because  his  resurrection  seals 
and  consummates  his  redemptive  power;  and  the  redemption 
of  our  persons  involves  the  redemption  of  our  bodies. — Rom. 
viii.  23.  2d.  Because  of  our  federal  and  vital  union  with  Christ. 
1  Cor.  xv.  21,  22;  1  Thess.  iv.  14.  3d.  Because  of  his  Spirit 
which  dwells  in  us  (Rom.  viii.  11;,  making  our  bodies  his 
members. — 1  Cor.  vi.  15.  4th.  Because  Christ  by  covenant  is 
Lord  both  of  the  living  and  the  dead. — Rom.  xiv.  9.  This 
same  federal  and  vital  union  of  the  Christian  with  Christ  (see 
above,  Chap.  XXXI.)  likewise  causes  the  resurrection  of  the 
believer  to  be  similar  to,  as  well  as  consequent  upon  that  of 
Christ— 1  Cor.  xv.  49;  Phil.  iii.  21;  1  John  iii.  2. 

11.  How  far  are  objections  of  a  scientific  character  against  the 
doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body  entitled  to  iveight  ? 

All  truth  is  one,  and  of  God,  and  necessarily  consistent, 
whether  revealed  by  means  of  the  phenomena  of  nature  or  of 
the  words  of  inspiration.  On  the  other  hand,  it  follows  from 
our  partial  knowledge  and  often  erroneous  interpretation  of 
the  data  both  of  science  and  revelation,  that  we  often  are  un- 
able to  discern  the  harmonies  of  truths  in  reality  intimately 
related.  Nothing  can  be  believed  to  be  true  which  is  clearly 
seen  to  be  inconsistent  with  truth  already  certainly  established. 
But,  on  the  other  hand,  in  the  present  stage  of  our  develop- 
ment, the  largest  proportion  of  the  materials  of  our  knowledge 
rests  upon  independent  evidence,  and  are  received  by  us  all 
as  certain  on  their  own  respective  grounds,  although  we  fail 
as  yet  to  reconcile  each  fact  with  every  other  in  the  harmonies 
of  their  higher  laws.  The  principles  of  physical  science  are  to 
be  taken  as  true  upon  their  own  ground,  i.  e.,  so  far  as  they 
are  matured,  and  the  testimony  of  revelation  is  to  be  taken  as 
infallible  truth  on  its  own  ground.  The  one  may  modify  our 
interpretation  of  the  other,  but  the  most  certain  of  all  principles 
is  that  a  matured  science  will  always  corroborate  rightly  in- 
terpreted revelation. 

12.  Hoio  may  the  identify  of  our  future  with  our  p>resent  bodies 
be  reconciled  with  1  Cor.  xv.  42-50  ? 

In  verses  42-44  this  identity  is  expressly  asserted.     The 


\ 


562  THE    RESURRECTION. 

body  is  to  be  the  same,  though  changed  in  these  several  partic- 
ulars. 1st.  It  is  noio  subject  to  corruption,  then  incorruptible. 
2d.  It  is  now  dishonored,  it  will  then  be  glorified.  3d.  It  is 
now  weak,  it  will  then  be  powerful.  4th.  It  is  now  natural,  i.  e., 
adapted  to  the  present  condition  of  the  soul  and  constitution  of 
the  world.  It  will  then  be  spiritual,  i.  e.,  adapted  to  the  glori- 
fied condition  of  the  soul,  and  constitution  of  the  "new  heavens 
and  new  earth." 

Verse  50  declares  simply  that  "flesh  and  blood,"  that  is,  the 
present  corruptible,  weak,  and  depraved  constitution  of  the  body 
can  not  inherit  heaven.     Yet  the  passage  as  a  whole  clearly 
\  teaches,  not  the  substitution  of  a  new  body,  but  the  transforma- 
tion of  the  old. 

13.  What  fads  does  physiological  science  establish  with  respect 
to  the  perpetual  changes  that  are  going  on  in  our  present  bodies,  and 
what  relation  do  these  facts  sustain  to  this  doctrine  ? 

By  a  ceaseless  process  of  the  assimilation  of  new  material 
and  excretion  of  the  old,  the  particles  composing  our  bodies  are 
ceaselessly  changing  from  birth  to  death,  effecting,  as  it  is  com- 
puted, a  change  in  every  atom  of  the  entire  structure  every 
seven  years.  Thus  there  will  not  be  a  particle  in  the  organism 
of  an  adult  which  constituted  part  of  his  person  when  a  boy, 
nor  in  that  of  the  old  man  of  that  which  belonged  to  him  when 
of  middle  age.  The  body  from  youth  to  age  is  universally  sub- 
ject to  vast  changes  in  size,  form,  expression,  condition,  and 
many  times  to  total  change  of  constituent  particles.  All  this 
is  certain ;  but  it  is  none  the  less  certain  that  through  all  these 
changes  the  man  possesses  identically  the  same  person  from 
youth  to  age.  This  proves  that  neither  the  identity  of  the  body 
of  the  same  man  from  youth  to  age,  nor  the  identity  of  our 
present  with  our  resurrection  bodies,  consists  in  sameness  of 
:  particles.  If  we  are  sure  of  our  identity  in  the  one  case,  we 
need  not  stumble  at  the  difficulties  attending  the  other. 

14.  What  objection  to  this  doctrine  is  derived  from  the  known 
fact  of  the  dispersion  and  assimilation  into  other  organisms  of  the 
particles  of  our  bodies  after  death  ? 

The  instant  the  vital  principle  surrenders  the  elements  of 
the  body  to  the  unmodified  control  of  the  laws  of  chemical 
affinity,  their  present  combinations  are  dissolved  and  distributed 
throughout  space,  and  they  are  taken  up  and  assimilated  by 
other  animal  and  vegetable  organisms.  Thus  the  same  particles 
have  formed,  at  different  times,  part  of  the  bodies  of  myriads  of 
men,  in  the  successive  periods  of  the  growth  of  individuals,  and 
in  successive  generations.     Hence  it  has  been  objected  to  the 


THE    CONDITIONS    OF  IDENTITY.  563 

scriptural  doctrine  of  tlie  resun*ection  of  the  body,  that  it  will 
be  impossible  to  decide  to  which  of  the  thousand  bodies  which 
these  particles  have  formed  part  in  turn,  they  should  be  assigned 
in  the  resurrection ;  or  to  reinvest  each  soul  with  its  own  body, 
when  all  the  constituent  elements  of  every  body  have  been 
shared  in  common  by  many.  We  answer  that  bodily  identity 
does  not  consist  in  sameness  of  constituent  particles.  See 
above,  Question  13.  Just  as  God  has  revealed  to  us  through 
consciousness  that  our  bodies  are  identical  from  infancy  to  age, 
although  their  constituent  elements  often  change,  he  has,  with 
equal  certainty  and  reasonableness,  revealed  to  us  in  his  inspired 
word  that  our  bodies,  raised  in  glory,  are  identical  with  our 
bodies  sown  in  dishonor,  although  their  constituent  particles 
may  have  been  scattered  to  the  ends  of  the  earth. 

15.  What  is  essential  to  identity  ? 

1st.  "  It  is  evident  that  identity  depends  upon  different  con- 
ditions in  different  cases.  The  identity  of  a  stone  or  any  other 
portion  of  unorganized  matter  consists  in  its  substance  and 
form.  On  the  other  hand,  the  identity  of  a  plant  from  the  seed 
to  its  maturity  is,  in  a  great  measure,  independent  of  sameness 
of  substance  or  of  form.  Their  identity  appears  to  consist  in 
each  plant's  being  one  organized  whole,  and  in  the  continuity 
of  the  succession  of  its  elements  and  parts.  The  identity  of  a 
picture  does  not  depend  upon  the  sameness  of  the  particles  of 
coloring  matter  of  which  it  is  composed,  for  these  we  may  con- 
ceive to  be  conthmally  changing,  but  upon  the  drawing,  the 
tints,  the  light  and  shade,  the  expression,  the  idea  which  it 
embodies,"  etc. 

2d.  Bodily  identity  is  not  a  conclusion  drawn  from  the  com- 
parison, or  combination  of  other  facts,  but  it  is  itself  a  single 
irresolvable  fact  of  consciousness.  The  child,  the  savage,  the 
philosopher,  are  alike  certain  of  the  sameness  of  their  bodies 
at  different  periods  of  their  lives,  and  on  the  same  grounds. 
This  intuitive  conviction,  as  it  is  not  the  result  of  science, 
so  it  is  no  more  bound  to  give  an  account  of  itself  to  sci- 
ence, i.  e.,  we  are  no  more  called  upon  to  explain  it  before  wre 
believe  it  than  we  are  to  explain  any  other  of  the  simple  data 
of  consciousness. 

3d.  The  resurrection  of  our  bodies,  although  a  certain  fact 
of  revelation,  is  to  us,  as  yet,  an  unrealized  experience,  an  un- 
observed phenomenon.  The  physical  conditions,  therefore,  of  the 
identity  of  our  "spiritual  bodies"  with  our  "natural  bodies,"  we 
can  not  now  possibly  comprehend,  since  we  have  neither  the 
experience,  the  observation,   nor  the  revelation  of  the  facts 


664  THE    RESURRECTION. 

involved  in  such  knowledge.  This  much,  however,  is  certain 
as  to  the  result — 1st.  The  body  of  the  resurrection  will  be  as 
strictly  identical  with  the  body  of  death,  as  the  body  of  death  ' 
is  with  the  body  of  birth.  2d.  Each  soul  will  have  an  indubi- 
table intuitive  consciousness  that  its  new  body  is  identical  with 
the  old.  3d.  Each  friend  shall  recognize  the  individual  char- 
acteristics of  the  soul  in  the  perfectly  transparent  expression 
of  the  new  body. — Dr.  Hodge. 

16.  Hoivfar  ivas  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body  held 
by  the  Jews? 

With  the  exception  of  some  heretical  sects,  as  the  Sadducees, 
the  Jews  held  this  doctrine  in  the  same  sense  in  which  we  hold 
it  now.  This  is  evident — 1st.  Because  it  was  clearly  revealed 
in  their  inspired  writings,  see  above,  Question  2.  2d.  It  is  af- 
firmed in  their  uninspired  writings. — Wisdom,  hi.  6,  13;  iv.  15; 
2  Maccabees  vii.  9,  14,  23,  29.  3d.  Christ  in  his  discourses,  in-  £ 
stead  of  proving  this  doctrine,  assumes  it  as  recognized. — Luke 
xiv.  14;  John  v.  28,  29.  4th.  Paul  asserts  that  both  the  ancient 
Jews  (Heb.  xi.  35),  and  his  own  contemporaries  (Acts  xxiv.  15), 
believed  this  doctrine. 

17.  What  early  heretical  sects  in  the  Christian  church  rejected 
this  doctrine? 

All  the  sects  bearing  the  generic  designation  of  gnostic,  and 
under  various  specific  names  embodying  the  leaven  of  oriental 
philosophy,  wrhich  infested  the  church  of  Christ  from  the  begin- 
ning for  many  centuries,  believed,  1st,  that  matter  is  essentially 
vile,  and  the  source  of  all  sin  and  misery  to  the  soul;  2d,  that 
complete  sanctification  is  consummated  only  in  the  dissolution 
of  the  body  and  the  emancipation  of  the  soul ;  3d,  that  conse- 
quently any  literal  resurrection  of  the  body  is  repugnant  to  the 
spirit,  and  would  be  destructive  to  the  purpose  of  the  whole 
gospel. 

18.  What  is  the  doctrine  taught  by  Swedenborg  on  this  subject? 

It  is  substantially  the  same  with  that  set  forth  by  Professor 
Bush  in  his  once  famous  book,  "Anastasia."  They  teach  that 
the  literal  body  is  dissolved,  and  finally  perishes  in  death.  But 
by  a  subtle  law  of  our  nature  an  etherial,  luminous  body  is 
eliminated  out  of  the  i/wxti  (the  seat  of  the  nervous  sensibility, 
occupying  the  middle  link  between  matter  and  spirit),  so  that 
the  soul  does  not  go  forth  from  its  tabernacle  of  flesh  a  bare 


HERETICAL    VIEWS.  565 

power  of  thought,  but  is  clothed  upon  at  once  by  this  psychical 
body.  This  resurrection  of  the  body,  they  pretend,  tabes  place 
in  every  case  immediately  at  death,  and  accompanies  the  out- 
going soul. — See  "Religion  and  Philosophy  of  Swedenborg," 
Theophilus  Parsons. 

19.  How  do  modern  rationalists  explain  the  passages  of  Scripture 
ivhich  relate  to  this  subject? 

They  explain  them  away,  denying  their  plain  sense,  either, 
1st,  as  purely  allegorical  modes  of  inculcating  the  truth  of  the 
continued  existence  of  the  soul  after  death;  or,  2d,  as  conces 
sions  to  the  prejudices  and  superstitions  of  the  Jews. 


CHAPTER   XXXIX. 

THE  SECOND  ADVENT  AND  GENERAL  JUDGMENT. 

1.  What  is  tJie  meaning  of  the  expressions  "the  coming,"  or  "the 
day  of  the  Lord"  as  used  in  both  thte  Old  and  New  Testaments  ? 

1st.  For  any  special  manifestation  of  God's  presence  and 
power. — John  xiv.  18,  23;  Is.  xiii.  6;  Jer.  xlvi.  10.  2d.  Byway 
of  eminence.  (1.)  In  the  Old  Testament,  for  the  coming  of 
Christ  in  the  flesh,  and  the  abrogation  of  the  Jewish  economy. 
Malachi  iii.  2;  iv.  5.  (2.)  In  the  New  Testament,  for  the  second 
and  final  coming  of  Christ. 

The  several  terms  referring  to  this  last  great  event  are,  1st, 
dTtoxdXvipii,  revelation. — 1  Cor.  i.  7 ;  2  Thess.  i.  7 ;  1  Pet.  i.  7,  13 ; 
iv.  13.  2d.  Ttapovdia,  presence,  advent. — Matt.  xxiv.  3,  27,  37, 
39;  1  Cor.  xv.  23;  1  Thess.  ii.  19;  iii.  13;  iv.  15;  v.  23;  2  Thess. 
ii.  1-9;  James  v.  7,  8;  2  Pet.  i.  16;  iii.  4,  12;  1  John  ii.  28.  3d. 
kmqxxvEta,  appearance,  manifestation. — 2  Thess.  ii.  8;  1  Tim.  vi 
14;  2  Tim.  iv.  1,  8;  Titus  ii.  13. 

The  time  of  that  coming  is  designated  as  "the  dav  of  God." 
2  Pet.  iii.  12.  "The  day  of  the  Lord."— 1  Thess.  v.* 2.  "The 
day  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  of  Jesus  Christ." — 1  Cor.  i.  8 ;  Phil, 
i.  6,  10;  2  Pet.  iii.  10.  "That  day."— 2  Thess.  i.  10;  2  Tim.  i 
12,  18.  "The  last  day."— John  vi.  39-54.  "The  great  day," 
"the  day  of  wrath,"  and  "of  judgment,"  and  "  of  revelation." — 
Jude  6;  Rev.  vi.  17;  Eom.  ii.  5;  2  Pet.  ii.  9. 

Christ  is  called  6  kpxojuEvos,  the  coming  one,  with  reference  to 
both  advents. — Matt.  xxi.  9;  Luke  vii.  19,  20;  xix.  38;  John 
iii.  31;  Rev.  i.  4;  iv.  8;  xi.  17. 

2.  Present  the  evidence  that  a  literal  personal  advent  of  Christ 
atiU future  is  taught  in  the  Bible. 

1st.  The  analogy  of  the  first  advent.  The  prophecies  re- 
lating to  the  one  having  been  literally  fulfilled  by  a  personal 
coming,  we  may  be  certain  that  the  perfectly  similar  proph- 
ecies relating  to  the  other  will  be  fulfilled  in  the  same  sense. 

2d.  The  language  of  Christ  predicting  such  advent  admits 


FACT   CLEARLY  REVEALED.  507 

of  no  other  rational  interpretation.  The  coming  itself,  its  man- 
ner and  purpose  are  alike  defined.  He  is  to  be  attended  with 
the  hosts  of  heaven,  in  power  and  great  glory.  He  is  to  come 
upon  the  occasion  of  the  general  resurrection  and  judgment, 
and  for  the  purpose  of  consummating  his  mediatorial  work,  by 
the  final  condemnation  and  perdition  of  all  his  enemies,  and 
by  the  acknowledgment  and  completed  glorification  of  all  his 
friends. — Matt.  xvi.  27;  xxiv.  30;  xxv.  31;  xxvi.  64;  Mark  viii. 
38;  Lukexxi.  27. 

3d.  The  apostles  understood  these  predictions  to  relate  to  a 
literal  advent  of  Christ  in  person.  They  teach  their  disciples 
to  form  the  habit  of  constantly  looking  forward  to  it,  as  a  sol- 
emnizing motive  to  fidelity,  and  to  encouragement  and  resig- 
nation under  present  trials.  They  teach  that  his  coming  will 
be  visible  and  glorious,  accompanied  with  the  abrogation  of 
the  present  gospel  dispensation,  the  destruction  of  his  enemies, 
the  glorification  of  his  friends,  the  conflagration  of  the  world, 
and  the  appearance  of  the  "new  heaven  and  new  earth."  See 
the  passages  quoted  under  the  preceding  chapter,  and  Acts.  i. 
11;  iii.  19-21;  1  Cor.  iv.  5;  xi.  26;  xv.  23;  Heb.  ix.  28;  x.  37.— 
Dr.  Hodge's  "  Lecture." 

3.  What  three  modes  of  interpretation  have  been  adopted  in 
reference  to  Matt.  xxiv.  and  xxv.  ? 

"  It  is  to  be  remarked  that  these  chapters  contain  an  an- 
swer to  three  distinct  questions.  1st.  When  the  temple  and 
city  were  to  be  destroyed.  2d.  What  were  to  be  the  signs  of 
Christ's  coming?  3d.  The  third  question  related  to  the  end  of 
the  world.  The  difficulty  consists  in  separating  the  portions 
relating  to  these  several  questions.  There  are  three  methods 
adopted  in  the  explanation  of  these  chapters.  1st.  The  first 
assumes  that  they  refer  exclusively  to  the  overthrow  of  the 
Jewish  polity,  and  the  establishment  and  progress  of  the  gos- 
pel. 2d.  The  second  assumes  that  what  is  here  said  has  been 
fulfilled  in  one  sense  in  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  is  to 
be  fulfilled  in  a  higher  sense  at  the  last  day.  3d.  The  third 
supposes  that  some  portions  refer  exclusively  to  the  former 
event  and  others  exclusively  to  the  latter.  It  is  plain  that  the 
first  view  is  untenable,  and  whether  the  second  or  third  view 
be  adopted,  the  obscurity  resting  upon  this  passage  can  not 
properly  be  allowed  to  lead  us  to  reject  the  clear  and  constant 
teaching  of  the  New  Testament  with  regard  to  the  second  per- 
sonal and  visible  advent  of  the  Son  of  God." — Dr.  Hodge. 

4.  In  what  passages  is  the  time  of  Christ's  second  advent  declared 
to  be  unknown  ? 


668  SECOND   ADVENT. 

Matt.  xxiv.  36;  Mark  xiii.  32;  Luke  xii.  40;  Acts  i.  6,  7; 
1  Thess.  v.  1-3;  2  Pet.  iii.  3,  4,  10;  Rev.  xvi.  15. 

5.  What  passages  are  commonly  cited  in  proof  that  the  apostles 
exjoected  the  second  advent  during  their  lives  ? 

Phil.  i.  6 ;  1  Thess.  iv.  15 ;  Heb.  x.  25 ;  1  Pet.  i.  5 ;  James  v.  8. 

6.  How  may  it  be  shown  that  tJiey  did  not  entertain  such  an 
expectation  ? 

1st.  The  apostles,  as  individuals,  apart  from  their  public 
capacity  as  inspired   teachers,  were   subject  to  the  common 

f)rejudices  of  their  age  and  nation,  and  only  gradually  were 
>rought  to  the  full  knowledge  of  the  truth.  During  Christ's 
life  they  expected  that  he  would  establish  his  kingdom  in  its 
glory  at  that  time,  Luke  xxiv.  21;  and  after  his  resurrection 
the  first  question  they  asked  him  was,  "  Wilt  thou  at  this  time 
restore  the  kingdom  to  Israel  ?  " 

2d.  In  their  inspired  writings  they  have  never  taught  that 
the  second  coming  of  their  Lord  was  to  occur  in  their  lifetime, 
or  at  any  fixed  time  whatever.  They  only  taught  (1)  that  it 
ought  to  be  habitually  desired,  and  (2)  since  it  is  uncertain  as 
to  time,  that  it  should  always  be  regarded  as  imminent. 

3d.  As  further  revelations  were  vouchsafed  to  them,  they 
learned,  and  explicitly  taught,  that  the  time  of  the  second 
advent  was  not  only  uncertain,  but  that  many  events,  still 
future,  must  previously  occur,  e.  g.,  the  anti-Christian  apostasy, 
the  preaching  of  the  gospel  to  eveiy  nation,  the  fulness  of  the 
Gentiles,  the  conversion  of  the  Jews,  the  millennial  prosperity 
of  the  church,  and  the  final  defection. — Rom.  xi.  15-32 ;  2  Cor. 
iii.  15,  16;  2  Thess.  ii.  3.  This  is  clear,  because  the  coming  of 
Christ  is  declared  to  be  attended  with  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead,  the  general  judgment,  the  general  conflagration,  and  the 
restitution  of  all  things.     See  below,  Question  9. 

7.  What  is  the  Scriptural  doctrine  concerning  the  millennium  ? 

1st.  The  Scriptures,  both  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament, 
clearly  reveal  that  the  gospel  is  to  exercise  an  influence  over 
all  branches  of  the  human  family,  immeasurably  more  extensive 
and  more  thoroughly  transforming  than  any  it  has  ever  realized 
in  time  past.  This  end  is  to  be  gradually  attained  through 
the  spiritual  presence  of  Christ  in  the  ordinary  dispensation  of 
Providence,  and  ministrations  of  his  church. — Matt.  xiii.  31,  32; 
xxviii.  19,  20;  Ps.  ii.  7,  8;  xxii.  27,  29;  lxxii.  8-11;  Is.  ii.  2,  3; 
xi.  6-9;  lx.  12;  lxvi.  23;  Dan.  ii.  35,  44;  Zech.  ix.  10;  xiv.  9; 
Rev.  xi.  15.  -» 

2d.  The  period  of  this  general  prevalency  of  the  gospel  will 


THE    TREMILLENNIAL    ADVENT    THEORY.  569 

continue  a  thousand  years,  and  is  hence  designated  the  millen- 
nium.— Rev.  xx.  2-7. 

3d.  The  Jews  are  to  be  converted  to  Christianity  either  at 
the  commencement  or  during  the  continuance  of  this  period. 
Zech.  xii.  10;  xiii.  1;  Rom.  xi.  26-29;  2  Cor.  iii.  15,  16. 

4th.  At  the  end  of  these  thousand  years,  and  before  the 
coming  of  Christ,  there  will  be  a  comparatively  short  season 
of  apostasy  and  violent  conflict  between  the  kingdoms  of  light 
and  darkness. — Luke  xvii.  26-30;  2  Pet.  iii.  3,  4;  Rev.  xx.  7-9. 

5th.  Christ's  advent,  the  general  resurrection  and  judgment, 
will  be  simultaneous,  and  immediately  succeeded  by  the  burn- 
ing of  the  old,  and  the  revelation  of  the  new  earth  and  heavens. 
"  Confession  of  Faith,"  Chaps,  xxxii.  and  xxxiii. 

8.  What  is  the  vieiv  of  those  ivho  maintain  that  Christ's  coming 
will  be  " premillennial"  and  that  he  will  reign  personally  upon  the 
earth  a  thousand  years  before  the  judgment  ? 

1st.  Many  of  the  Jews,  mistaking  altogether  the  spiritual 
character  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom,  entertained  the  opinion  that 
as  the  church  had  continued  two  thousand  years  before  the  giv- 
ing of  the  law,  so  it  would  continue  two  thousand  years  under 
the  law,  when  the  Messiah  would  commence  his  personal  reign, 
which  should,  in  turn,  continue  two  thousand  years  to  the  com- 
mencement of  the  eternal  Sabbath.  They  expected  that  the 
Messiah  Avould  reign  visibly  and  gloriously  in  Jerusalem,  as  his 
capital,  over  all  the  nations  of  the  earth,  the  Jews,  as  his  espe- 
cial people,  being  exalted  to  pre-eminent  dignity  and  privilege. 

2d.  The  Apostolical  Fathers  of  the  Jewish  Christian  branch 
of  the  church,  such  as  Barnabas,  Hermes,  and  Papias,  adopted 
it.  It  prevailed  generally  throughout  the  church  from  a.  d.  150, 
to  a.  d.  250,  being  advocated  by  Irenseus  and  Tertullian.  Since 
that  time  the  doctrine  taught  in  this  chapter  has  been  the  one 
generally  recognized  by  the  whole  church,  while  MiUenarianism 
or  Chilianism  has  been  confined  to  individuals  and  transient 
parties.  Its  advocates  based  their  doctrine  on  the  literal  inter- 
pretation of  Rev.  xx  1-10,  and  held — 1st.  That  after  the  de- 
velopment of  the  anti-Christian  apostasy,  at  some  time  very 
variously  estimated,  Christ  was  suddenly  to  appear  and  com- 
mence his  personal  reign  of  a  thousand  years  in  Jerusalem. 
The  dead  in  Christ  (some  say  only  the  martyrs)  were  then  to 
rise  and  reign  with  liim  in  the  world,  the  majority  of  whose 
inhabitants  shall  be  converted,  and  live  during  this  period  in 
great  prosperity  and  happiness,  the  Jews  in  the  mean  time 
being  converted,  and  restored  to  their  own  land.  (2.)  That 
after  the  thousand  years  there  shall  come  the  final  apostasy  for 
a  little  season,  and  then  the  resurrection  of  the  rest  of  the  dead. 


670  SECOND    ADVENT. 

i,  e.,  the  wicked  and  their  judgment  and  condemnation  at  the 
last  day,  the  final  conflagration,  and  new  heavens  and  earth. 

3d.  Modern  premillenarians,  while  differing  among  them- 
selves as  to  the  details  of  their  interpretations,  agree  substan- 
tially with  the  view  just  stated.  Hence  they  are  called  pre- 
millenarians, because  they  believe  the  advent  of  Christ  will 
occur  be/ore  the  Millennium. 

9.  What  are  the  principal  Scriptural  arguments  against  this 
view  ? 

1st.  The  theory  is  evidently  Jewish  in  its  origin  and  Juda- 
izing  in  its  tendency. 

2d.  It  is  not  consistent  with  what  the  Scriptures  teach. 
(1.)  As  to  the  nature  of  Christ's  kingdom,  e.  g.,  (a)  that  it  is 
not  of  this  world  but  spiritual,  Matt.  xiii.  11-44;  John  xviii. 
36;  Rom.  xiv.  17;  (?>)  that  it  was  not  to  be  confined  to  the 
Jews,  Matt.  viii.  11,  12;  (c)  that  regeneration  is  the  condition 
of  admission  to  it,  John  iii.  3,  5;  (d)  that  the  blessings  of  the 
kingdom  are  purely  spiritual,  as  pardon,  sanctification,  etc., 
Matt.  iii.  2,  11;  Col.  i.  13,  14.  (2.)  As  to  the  fact  that  the 
kingdom  of  Christ  has  already  come.  He  has  sat  upon  the 
throne  of  his  Father  David  ever  since  his  ascension. — Acts  ii. 
29-36;  iii.  13-15;  iv.  26-28;  v.  29-31;  Heb.  x.  12,  13;  Rev. 
iii.  7-12.  The  Old  Testament  prophecies,  therefore,  which  pre- 
dict this  kingdom,  must  refer  to  the  present  dispensation  of 
grace,  and  not  to  a  future  reign  of  Christ  on  earth  in  person 
among  men  in  the  flesh. 

3d.  The  second  advent  is  not  to  occur  until  the  resurrec- 
tion, when  all  the  dead,  both  good  and  bad,  are  to  rise  at  once. 
Dan.  xii.  2;  John  v.  28,  29;  1  Cor.  xv.  23;  1  Thess.  iv.  16;  Rev. 
xx.  11,  15.  Only  one  passage  (Rev.  xx.  1-10)  is  even  appar- 
ently inconsistent  with  the  fact  here  asserted.  For  the  true 
interpretation  of  that  passage,  see  next  question. 

4th.  The  second  advent  is  not  to  occur  until  the  simulta- 
neous judgment  of  all  men,  the  good  and  the  bad  together. 
Matt.  vii.  21,  23;  xiii.  30-43;  xvi.  24,  27;  xxv.  31-46;  Rom.  ii. 
5,  16;  1  Cor.  iii.  12-15;  2  Cor.  v.  9-11;  2  Thess.  i.  6-10;  Rev. 
xx.  11-15. 

5th.  The  second  advent  is  to  be  attended  with  the  general 
conflagration  and  the  generation  of  the  "  new  heavens  and  the 
new  earth." — 2  Pet.  iii.  7-13;  Rev.  xx.  11;  xxi.  1.  "Brown 
on  the  Second  Advent." 

10.  What  considerations  favor  the  spiritual  and  oppose  the  lit- 
eral interpretation  of  Rev.  xx.  1-10. 

The  spiritual  interpretation  of  this  difficult  passage  is  as 


THE  SPIRITUAL  INTERPRETATION  OE  REV.  XX.    i-io.   571 

follows:  Christ  has  in  reserve  for  his  church  a  period  of  uni- 
versal expansion  and  of  pre-eminent  spiritual  prosperity,  when 
the  spirit  and  character  of  the  "noble  army  of  martyrs"  shah 
be  reproduced  again  in  the  great  body  of  God's  people  in  an 
unprecedented  measure,  and  when  these  martyrs  shall,  in  the 
general  triumph  of  their  cause,  and  in  the  overthrow  of  that 
of  their  enemies,  receive  judgment  over  their  foes  and  reign  in 
the  earth ;  while  the  party  of  Satan,  "  the  rest  of  the  dead,'' 
shall  not  flourish  again  until  the  thousand  years  be  ended, 
when  it  shall  prevail  again  for  a  little  season. 

The  considerations  in  favor  of  this  interpretation  of  the 
passage  are — 

1st.  It  occurs  in  one  of  the  most  highly  figurative  books  of 
the  Bible. 

2d.  This  interpretation  is  perfectly  consistent  with  all  the 
other  more  explicit  teachings  of  the  Scriptures  on  the  several 
points  involved. 

3d.  The  same  figure,  viz.,  that  of  life  again  from  the  dead,  is 
frequently  used  in  Scripture  to  express  the  idea  of  the  spiritual 
revival  of  the  church. — Is.  xxvi.  19;  Ezek.  xxxvii.  12-14;  Hosea 
vi.  1-3;  Rom.  xi.  15;  Rev.  xi.  11. 

The  considerations  bearing  against  the  literal  interpretation, 
of  this  passage  are — 

1st.  That  the  pretended  doctrine  of  two  resurrections,  i.  e., 
first  of  the  righteous,  and  then,  after  an  interval  of  a  thousand 
years,  of  the  wicked,  is  taught  nowhere  else  in  the  Bible,  and 
this  single  passage  in  which  it  occurs  is  an  obscure  one.  This 
is  a  strong  presumption  against  the  truth  of  the  doctrine. 

2d.  It  is  inconsistent  with  what  the  Scriptures  uniformly 
teach  as  to  the  nature  of  the  resurrection  body,  i.  e.,  that  it  is 
to  be  "spiritual,"  not  "natural,"  or  "flesh  and  blood." — 1  Cor. 
xv.  44.  It  is,  on  the  contrary,  an  essential  part  of  the  doc- 
trine associated  with  the  literal  interpretation  of  this  passage, 
that  the  saints,  or  at  least  the  martyrs,  are  to  rise  and  reign 
a  thousand  years  in  the  flesh,  and  in  this  world  as  at  present 
constituted. 

3d.  The  literal  interpretation  of  this  passage  contradicts  the 
clear  and  uniform  teaching  of  the  Scriptures,  that  all  the  dead, 
good  and  bad,  are  to  rise  and  be  judged  together  at  the  second 
coming  of  Christ,  and  the  entire  revolution  of  the  present  order 
of  creation.  See  the  Scripture  testimonies  collected  under  the 
preceding  question. 

11.  SJioiv  that  tJie  future  general  conversion  of  the  Jews  is  taught 
in  Scripture? 

This  Paul,  in  Rom.  xi.  15-29,  both  asserts  and  proves  from 


572  SECOND    ADVENT. 

Old  Testament  prophecies,  e.  g.,  Isa.  lix.  20;  Jer.  xxxi.  31-     See 
also  Zech.  xii.  10;  2  Cor.  iii.  i5,  16. 

12.  State  the  argument  for  and  against  the  opinion  that  the  Jews 
are  to  be  restored  to  their  oivn  land? 

The  arguments  in  favor  of  that  return  are — 

1st.  The  literal  sense  of  many  old  Testament  prophecies. 
Isa.  xi.  11,  12;  Jer.  iii.  17;  xvi.  14,  15;  Ezek.  xx.  40-44;  xxxiv. 
11-31;  xxxvi.  1-36;  Hosea  iii.  4,  5;  Amos  ix.  11-15;  Zech.  x. 
6-10;  xiv.  1-20;  Joel  iii.  1-17. 

2d.  That  the  whole  territory  promised  by  God  to  Abraham 
has  never  at  any  period  been  fully  possessed  by  his  descend- 
ints,  Gen.  xv.  18-21 ;  Num.  xxxiv.  6-12,  and  renewed  through 
Ezekiel,  Ezek.  xlvii.  1-23. 

3d.  The  land,  though  capable  of  maintaining  a  vast  popula- 
tion, is  as  preserved  unoccupied,  evidently  waiting  for  inhabi- 
tants.— See  Keith's  "Land  of  Israel." 

4th.  The  Jews,  though  scattered  among  all  nations,  have 
been  miraculously  preserved  a  separate  people,  and  evidently 
await  a  destiny  as  signal  and  peculiar  as  has  been  their  his- 
tory. The  arguments  against  their  return  to  the  land  of  their 
fathers  are — 

1st.  The  New  Testament  is  entirely  silent  on  the  subject  of 
any  such  return,  which  would  be  an  inexplicable  omission  in 
the  clearer  revelation,  if  that  event  is  really  future. 

2d.  The  literal  interpretation  of  the  Old  Testament  proph- 
ecies concerned  in  this  question  would  be  most  unnatural — 
(1.)  Because,  if  the  interpretation  is  to  be  consistent,  it  must 
be  literal  in  all  its  parts.  Then  it  would  follow  that  David 
himself,  in  person,  must  be  raised  to  reign  again  in  Jerusalem. 
Ezek.  xxxvii.  24,  etc.  Then  the  Levitical  priesthood  must  be 
restored,  and  bloody  sacrifices  offered  to  God. — Ezek.  xl.  to 
xlvi. ;  Jer.  xvii.  25,  26.  Then  must  Jerusalem  be  the  centre  of 
government,  the  Jews  a  superior  class  in  the  Christian  church, 
and  all  worshippers  must  come  monthly  and  from  Sabbath  to 
Sabbath,  from  the  ends  of  the  earth  to  worship  at  the  Holy 
City.— Isa.  ii.  2,  3;  lxvi.  20-23;  Zech.  xiv.  16-21.  (2.)  Because 
the  literal  interpretation  thus  leads  to  the  revival  of  the  entire 
ritual  system  of  the  Jews,  and  is  inconsistent  with  the  spiritual- 
ity of  the  kingdom  of  Christ. — See  above,  Question  9.  (3.)  Be- 
cause the  literal  interpretation  of  these  passages  is  inconsistent 
with  what  the  New  Testament  plainly  teaches  as  to  the  aboli- 
tion of  all  distinctions  between  the  Jew  and  Gentile;  the  Jews, 
when  converted,  are  to  be  grafted  back  into  the  same  church. 
Rom.  xi.  19-24;  Eph.  ii.  13-19.  (4.)  Because  this  interpretation 
is  inconsistent  with  what  the  New  Testament  teaches  as  to  the 


THE    GENERAL    JUDGMENT.  573 

temporary  purpose,  the  virtual  insufficiency,  *\nd  the  final  aboli- 
tion of  the  Levitical  priesthood  and  their  sacrifices,  and  of  the 
infinite  sufficiency  of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  and  the  eternity  of 
his  priesthood.— Gal.  iv.  9,  10;  v.  4-8;  Col.  ii.  16-23;  Heb.  vil 
12-18;  viii.  7-13;  ix.  1-14 

3d.  On  the  other  hand,  the  spiritual  interpretation  of  these 
Old  Testament  prophecies — which  regards  them  as  predicting 
the  future  purity  and  extension  of  the  Christian  church,  and  as 
indicating  these  spiritual  subjects  by  means  of  those  persons, 
places,  and  ordinances  of  the  old  economy  which  were  typical 
of  them — is  both  natural  and  accordant  to  the  analogy  of  Script- 
ure. In  the  New  Testament,  Christians  are  called  Abraham's 
seed,  Gal.  hi.  29;  Israelites,  Gal.  vi.  16;  Eph.  ii.  12,  19;  comers 
to  Mount  Zion,  Heb.  xii.  22;  citizens  of  the  heavenly  Jerusa- 
lem, Gal.  iv.  26;  the  circumcision,  Phil.  iii.  3;  Col.  ii.  11,  and 
in  Rev.  ii.  9,  they  are  called  Jews.  There  is  also  a  Christian 
priesthood  and  spiritual  sacrifice. — 1  Pet.  ii.  5,  9;  Heb.  xiii. 
15,  16;  Rom.  xii.  1.  See  Fairbairn's  "Typology  Appendix," 
Vol.  I. 

13.  Who  is  to  be  the  judge  of  the  world  ? 

Jesus  Christ,  in  his  official  character  as  Mediator,  in  both 
natures,  as  the  God-man.  This  is  evident,  1st,  because  as  judge 
he  is  called  the  "  Son  of  Man,"  Matt.  xxv.  31,  32,  and  the  "man 
ordained  by  God." — Acts  xvii.  31.  2d.  Because  all  judgment 
is  said  to  be  committed  to  him  by  the  Father. — John  v.  22,  27. 
3d.  Because  it  pertains  to  him  as  Mediator  to  complete  and 
publicly  manifest  the  salvation  of  his  people,  and  the  overthrow 
of  his  enemies,  together  with  the  glorious  righteousness  of  his 
work  in  both  respects,  2  Thess.  i.  7-10;  Rev.  i.  7;  and  thus 
accomplish  the  "restitution  of  all  things." — Acts  iii.  21.  And 
this  he  shall  do  in  his  own  person,  that  his  glory  may  be  the 
more  manifest,  the  discomfiture  of  his  enemies  the  more  humil- 
iating, and  the  hope  and  joy  of  his  redeemed  the  more  complete. 

14.  WJvo  are  to  be  tine  subjects  of  the  judgment  ? 

1st.  The  whole  race  of  Adam,  without  exception,  of  every 
generation,  condition,  and  character,  each  individual  appearing 
in  the  integrity  of  his  person,  "body,  soul,  and  spirit."  The 
dead  will  be  raised,  and  the  living  changed  simultaneously 
Matt  xxv.  31-46;  1  Cor.  xv.  51,  52;  2  Cor.  v.  10;  1  Thess. 
iv.  17;  2  Thess.  i.  6-10;  Rev.  xx.  11-15.  2d.  All  evil  angels. 
2  Pet.  ii.  4 ;  Jude  6.  Good  angels  appearing  as  attendants  and 
ministers. — Matt.  xiii.  41,  42. 


574  SECOND   ADVENT. 

15.  In  ivhat  sense  is  it  said  that  the  saints  shall  judge  tlie  world  ? 

See  Matt.  xix.  28;  Luke  xxii.  29,  30;  1  Cor.  vi.  2,  3;  Rev. 
xx.  4. 

In  virtue  of  the  union  of  believers  with  Christ,  his  triumph 
and  dominion  is  theirs.  They  are  joint  heirs  with  him,  and  if 
they  suffer  with  him  they  shall  reign  with  him. — Rom.  viii.  17; 
2  Tim.  ii.  12.  He  will  judge  and  condemn  his  enemies  as  head 
and  champion  of  his  church,  all  his  members  assenting  to 
his  judgment  and  glorying  in  his  triumph. — Rev.  xix.  1-5. 
Hodge's  "Com.  on  1st  Cor." 

16.  Upon  what  principles  will  his  judgment  be  dispensed  ? 

The  judge  is  figuratively  represented  (Rev.  xx.  12),  after 
the  analogy  of  human  tribunals,  as  opening  "books"  in  judg- 
ment, according  to  the  things  written  in  which  the  dead  are  to 
be  judged,  and  also  "  another  book,"  "  which  is  the  book  of 
life."  The  books  first  mentioned  doubtless  figuratively  repre- 
sent the  law  or  standard  according  to  which  each  one  was  to 
be  judged,  and  the  facts  in  his  case,  or  "  the  works  which  he 
had  done."  The  "book  of  life"  (see  also  Phil.  iv.  3;  Rev.  hi.  5; 
xiii.  8 ;  xx.  15)  is  the  book  of  God's  eternal  electing  love.  Those 
whose  names  are  found  written  in  the  "  book  of  life  "  will  be 
declared  righteous  on  the  ground  of  their  participation  in  the 
righteousness  of  Christ.  Their  holy  characters  and  good  deeds, 
however,  will  be  publicly  declared  as  the  evidences  of  their  elec- 
tion, of  their  relation  to  Christ,  and  of  the  glorious  work  of 
Christ  in  them. — Matt.  xiii.  43 ;  xxv.  34-40. 

Those  whose  names  are  not  found  written  in  "  the  book  of 
life  "  will  be  condemned  on  the  ground  of  the  evil  "  deeds  they 
have  done  in  the  body,"  tried  by  the  standard  of  God's  law,  not 
as  that  law  has  been  ignorantly  conceived  of  by  each,  but  as 
it  has  been  more  or  less  fully  and  clearly  revealed  by  the  Judge 
himself  to  each  severally.  The  heathen  who  has  sinned  with- 
out the  written  law  "shall  be  judged  without  the  law,"  i.  e.,  by 
the  law  written  upon  his  heart,  which  made  him  a  law  unto 
himself. — Luke  xii.  47,  48;  Rom.  ii.  12-15.  The  Jew,  who 
"  sinned  in  the  law,  shall  be  judged  by  the  law." — Rom.  ii.  12. 
Every  individual  dwelling  under  the  light  of  the  Christian  rev- 
elation shall  be  judged  in  strict  accordance  with  the  whole 
will  of  God  as  made  known  to  him,  all  of  the  special  advan- 
tages of  every  kind  enjoyed  by  him  individually  modifying  the 
proportion  of  his  responsibility. — Matt.  xi.  20-24;  John  iii.  19. 

The  secrets  of  all  hearts,  the  inward  states  and  hidden 
springs  of  action,  will  be  brought  in  as  the  subject  matter  of 
judgment,  as  well  as  the  actions  themselves,  Eccle.  xii.  14;  1 


THE  FUTURE  CONFLAGRATION  OF  THE  EARTH.        575 

Cor.  iv.  5 ;  and  publicly  declared  to  vindicate  the  justice  of  the 
Judge,  and  to  make  manifest  the  shame  of  the  sinner. — Luke 
viii.  17 ;  xii.  2,  3 ;  Mark  iv.  22.  Whether  the  sins  of  the  saints 
will  be  brought  forward  at  the  judgment  or  not  is  a  question 
not  settled  by  the  Scriptures,  though  debated  by  theologians. 
If  they  should  be,  we  are  sure  that  it  will  be  done  only  with 
the  design  and  effect  of  enhancing  the  glory  of  the  Saviour 
and  the  comfort  of  the  saved. 

17.  What  do  the  Scriptures  reveal  concerning  the  future  con- 
flagration of  our  earth  ? 

The  principal  passages  bearing  upon  this  point  are  Ps.  cii. 
26,  27;  Is.  li.  6;  Rom.  viii.  19-23;  Heb.  xii.  26,  27;  2  Pet.  in. 
10-13 ;  Rev.  xx.  and  xxi. 

Many  of  the  older  theologians  thought  that  these  passages 
indicated  that  the  whole  existing  physical  universe  was  to  be 
destroyed.  This  view  is  now  universally  discarded.  Some  held 
that  this  earth  is  to  be  annihilated. 

The  most  common  and  probable  opinion  is  that  at  "  the  res- 
titution of  all  things,"  Acts.  iii.  21,  this  earth,  with  its  atmos- 
phere, is  to  be  subjected  to  intense  heat,  which  will  radically 
change  its  present  physical  condition,  introducing  in  the  place 
of  the  present  an  higher  order  of  things,  which  shall  appear 
as  a  "  new  heavens  and  a  new  earth,"  wherein  "  the  creature 
itself,  also,  shall  be  delivered  from  the  bondage  of  corruption 
into  the  glorious  liberty  of  the  children  of  God,"  Rom.  viii.  19-23, 
and  wherein  the  constitution  of  the  new  world  will  be  adapted 
to  the  "  spiritual "  or  resurrection  bodies  of  the  saints,  1  Cor. 
xv.  44,  to  be  the  scene  of  the  heavenly  society,  and,  above  all, 
to  be  the  palace-temple  of  the  God-man  forever. — Eph.  i.  14; 
Rev.  v.  9,  10;  xxi.  1-5.  See  also  Fairbairn's  "Typology,"  VoL 
I.,  Part  II.,  Chap,  ii.,  sec.  7. 

18.  What  should  be  the  moi'al  effect  of  the  Scriphire  doctrine 
of  Christ's  second  advent  ? 

Christians  ought  thereby  to  be  comforted  when  in  sorrow, 
and  always  stimulated  to  duty. — Phil.  iii.  20;  Col.  iii.  4,  5;  James 
v.  7;  1  John  iii.  2,  3.  It  is  their  duty  also  to  love,  watch,  wait 
for,  and  hasten  unto  the  coming  of  their  Lord. — Luke  xii.  35,  37 ; 
1  Cor.  i.  7,  8;  Phil.  iii.  20;  1  Thess.  i.  9,  10;  2  Tim.  iv.  8;  2  Pet 
iii.  12;  Rev.  xxii.  20. 

Unbelievers  should  be  filled  with  fearful  apprehension,  and 
with  all  their  might  thev  should  seek  place  for  immediate 
repentance.— Mark  xiii.  35,  37;  2  Pet.  iii.  9,  10;  Jude  14,  15. 
Brown's  "  Second  Advent." 


676  SECOND    ADVENT. 

AUTHORITATIVE   STATEMENTS   OF   ChUEOH  DOCTRTNE. 

Augustine  (" De  Civitate  Dei"  20,  7)  states,  that  he  once  held  the 
doctrine  of  a  millenarian  sabbath,  but  then  rejected  it  and  advocates  the 
doctrine  of  this  chapter,  which  has  thenceforward  prevailed  in  the  Roman 
Church. 

"Augsburg  Confession,"  Pt.  1,  Art.  17. — "They  also  teach  that  Christ 
will  appear  at  the  end  of  the  world  for  judgment,  and  that  he  will  resusci- 
tate all  the  dead,  and  that  he  will  give  to  the  pious  elect  eternal  life  and 
perpetual  joy,  but  condemn  wicked  men  and  devils,  that  they  shall  be 
tormented  without  end.  They  condemn  the  Anabaptists,  who  believe 
that  there  will  be  an  end  of  the  future  punishment  of  lost  men  and  devils. 
And  they  condemn  others  who  scatter  Jewish  opinions,  to  the  effect  that 
before  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  the  pious  will  occupy  the  kingdom 
of  the  world,  and  the  wicked  be  everywhere  in  subjection." 

"  The  English  Confession,  of  Edward  VI." — "Those  who  endeavor  to 
recall  the  fable  of  the  Millenarians,  oppose  the  sacred  Scriptures,  and 
precipitate  themselves  into  Jewish  insanities." 

"  Belgic  Confession,"  Art.  37. — "Lastly,  we  believe,  from  the  word  of 
God,  that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  will  return  from  heaven  bodily  and  vis- 
ibly, and  with  the  highest  glory,  when  the  time  predetermined  by  God, 
but  unknown  to  all  creatures,  shall  arrive,  and  the  number  of  the  elect  be 
complete.  .  .  .  At  that  time  all  who  have  heretofore  died  on  the  earth 
shall  arise." 

"  Westminster  Conf.  Chaps.  32  and  33;  "Larger  Cat.,"  Ques.  87-89.— 
These  teach — 1.  At  the  last  day  shall  be  a  general  resurrection  of  the 
dead  both  of  the  just  and  of  the  unjust.  2.  All  found  alive  shall  be  im- 
mediately changed.  3.  Immediately  after  the  resurrection  shall  follow 
the  general  and  final  judgment  of  all  angels  and  men,  good  and  bad. 
4.  That  the  date  of  this  day  and  hour  is  purposely  kept  secret  by  God. 
In  Ques.  53-56,  we  are  further  taught,  that  Christ's  second  coming  will 
not  occur  until  "  the  last  day,"  "  the  end  of  the  world,"  and  that  he  will 
then  come  "  to  judge  the  world  in  righteousness." 


CHAPTER   XL. 

HEAVEN  AND   HELL. 

1.  What  is  the  New  Testament  usage  as  to  the  terms  ovpavot, 
"  heaven"  and  rd  hnovpdvia,  "  heavenly  places  ?  " 

'Ovpavoi  is  used  chiefly  in  three  senses.  1st.  The  upper  air 
where  the  birds  fly. — Matt.  viii.  20;  xxiv.  30.  2d.  The  region 
in  which  the  stars  revolve. — Acts  vii.  42 ;  Heb.  xi.  12.  3d.  The 
abode  of  Christ's  human  nature,  the  scene  of  the  special  mani- 
festation of  divine  glory,  and  of  the  eternal  blessedness  of  the 
saints. — Heb.  ix.  24;  1  Pet.  iii.  22.  This  is  sometimes  called 
the  "third  heaven." — 2  Cor.  xii.  2.  The  phrases  "new  heaven," 
and  "  new  earth,"  in  contrast  with  "  first  heavens,"  and  "  first 
earth,"  2  Pet.  iii.  7,  13;  Rev.  xxi.  1,  refer  to  some  unexplained 
change  which  will  take  place  in  the  final  catastrophe,  by  which 
God  will  revolutionize  our  portion  of  the  physical  universe, 
cleansing  it  from  the  stain  of  sin,  and  qualifying  it  to  be  the 
abode  of  blessedness. 

For  the  usage  with  regard  to  the  phrase  "  kingdom  of 
heaven,"  see  above,  Chap.  XXVII.,  Question  5. 

The  phrase  r«  inovpavia  is  translated  sometimes,  "  heavenly 
tilings,"  John  iii.  12,  where  it  signifies  the  mysteries  of  the  un- 
seen spiritual  world;  and  sometimes  "heavenly  places,"  Eph. 
i.  3,  and  ii.  6,  where  it  means  the  state  into  which  a  believer 
is  introduced  at  his  regeneration ;  see  also  Eph.  i.  20,  where  it 
means  the  "third  heavens";  and  Eph.  vi.  12,  where  it  signifies 
indefinitely  the  supermundane  universe. 

2.  What  are  the  principal  terms,  both  literal  and  figurative, 
which  are  used  in  Scripture  to  designate  the  future  blessedness  of 
the  saints  ? 

Literal  terms:  "life,  eternal  life,  and  life  everlasting. — Matt, 
vii.  14;  xix.  16,  29;  xxv.  46.     Glory,  the  glory  of  God,  an  eter- 
nal weight  of  glory. — Rom.  ii.  7,  10;  v.  2;  2  Cor.  iv.  17.    Peace 
Rom.  ii.  10.     Salvation,  and  eternal  salvation. — Heb.  v.  9." 
37 


578  HEAVEN   AND    HELL. 

Figurative  terms:  "Paradise. — Luke  xxiii.  43;  2  Cor.  xn. 
4;  Rev.  ii.  7.  Heavenly  Jerusalem. — Gal.  iv.  26;  Rev.  iii.  12 
Kingdom  of  heaven,  heavenly  kingdom,  eternal  kingdom,  king- 
dom prepared  from  the  foundation  of  the  world. — Matt.  xxv.  34; 
2  Tim.  iv.  18;  2  Pet.  i.  11.  Eternal  inheritance. — 1  Pet.  i.  4; 
Heb.  ix.  15.  The  blessed  are  said  to  sit  down  with  Abraham, 
Isaac,  and  Jacob,  to  be  in  Abraham's  bosom,  Luke  xvi.  22; 
Matt.  viii.  11;  to  reign  with  Christ,  2  Tim.  ii.  11,  12;  to  enjoy 
a  Sabbath  or  rest,  Heb.  iv.  10,  11."— Kitto"s  "Bib.  Ency." 

3.  What  is  revealed  luith  respect  to  heaven  as  a  place  ? 

All  the  Scripture  representations  of  heaven  involve  the  idea 
of  a  definite  place,  as  well  as  of  a  state  of  blessedness.  Of  that 
place,  however,  nothing  more  is  revealed  than  that  it  is  defined 
by  the  local  presence  of  Christ's  finite  soul  and  body,  and  that 
it  is  the  scene  of  the  pre-eminent  manifestation  of  God's  glory. 
John  xvii.  24 ;  2  Cor.  v.  9 ;  Rev.  v.  6. 

From  such  passages  as  Rom.  viii.  19-23;  2  Pet.  iii.  5-13; 
Rev.  xxi.  1,  it  appears  not  improbable  that  after  the  general 
destruction  of  the  present  form  of  the  world  by  fire,  which 
shall  accompany  the  judgment,  this  world  will  be  reconsti- 
tuted, and  gloriously  adapted  to  be  the  permanent  residence 
of  Christ  and  his  church.  As  there  is  to  be  a  "  spiritual  body," 
there  may  be  in  the  same  sense  a  spiritual  world,  that  is,  a  world 
adapted  to  be  the  theatre  of  the  glorified  spirits  of  the  saints 
made  perfect.  As  nature  was  cursed  for  man's  sake,  and  the 
creature,  through  him,  made  subject  to  vanity,  it  may  be  that 
they  shall  share  in  his  redemption  and  exaltation. — See  Fair- 
bairn's  "  Typology,"  Part  II.,  Chap,  ii.,  sec.  7. 

4.  Wherein  does  the  blessedness  of  lieaven  consist  as  far  as 
revealed  ? 

1st.  Negatively,  in  perfect  deliverance  from  sin,  and  from 
all  its  evil  consequences,  physical,  moral,  and  social. — Rev.  vii 
16,  17;  xxi.  4,  27. 

2d.  Positively.  (1.)  In  the  perfection  of  our  nature,  both 
material  and  spiritual;  the  full  development  and  harmonious 
exercise  of  all  our  faculties,  intellectual  and  moral,  and  in  the 
unrestrained  progress  thereof  to  eternity. — 1  Cor.  xiii.  9-12; 
xv.  45-49;  1  John  iii.  2.  (2.)  In  the  sight  of  our  blessed  Re- 
deemer, communion  with  his  person,  and  fellowship  in  all  his 
glory  and  blessedness,  and  through  him  with  saints  and  angela 
John  xvii.  24;  1  John  i.  3;  Rev.  iii.  21;  xxi.  3,  4,  5.  (3.)  In 
that  "beatific  vision  of  God,"  which,  consisting  in  the  ever 
increasingly  clear  discovery  of  the  divine  excellence  lovingly 


THE    BLESSEDNESS    OF  HEAVEN.  579 

apprehended,  transforms  the  soul  into  the  same  image,  from 
glory  unto  glory. — Matt.  v.  8;  2  Cor.  iii.  18. 

In  meditating  upon  what  is  revealed  of  the  conditions  of 
heavenly  existence  two  errors  are  to  be  avoided:  1st,  the  ex- 
treme of  regarding  the  mode  of  existence  experienced  by  the 
saints  in  heaven  as  too  nearly  analogous  to  that  of  our  earthly 
life;  2d,  the  opposite  extreme  of  regarding  the  conditions  of 
the  heavenly  life  as  too  widely  distinguished  from  that  of  our 
present  experience.  The  evil  effect  of  the  first  extreme  will, 
of  course,  be  to  degrade  by  unworthy  associations  our  concep- 
tions of  heaven ;  while  the  evil  effect  of  the  opposite  extreme 
will  be  in  great  measure  to  destroy  the  moral  power  which  a 
hope  of  heaven  should  naturally  exert  over  our  hearts  and 
lives,  by  rendering  our  conceptions  of  it  vague,  and  our  sym- 
pathy with  its  characteristics  consequently  distant  and  feeble. 
To  avoid  both  of  these  extremes,  we  should  fix  the  limits  within 
which  our  conceptions  of  the  future  existence  of  the  saints  must 
range,  by  distinguishing  between  those  elements  of  man's  na- 
ture, and  of  his  relations  to  God  and  other  men,  which  are 
essential  and  unchangeable,  and  those  elements  which  must 
be  changed  in  order  to  render  his  nature  in  his  relations  per- 
fect. 1st.  The  following  must  be  changed :  (1)  all  sin  and  its 
consequences  must  be  removed;  (2)  "spiritual  bodies"  must 
take  the  place  of  our  present  flesh  and  blood;  (3)  the  new 
heavens  and  the  new  earth  must  take  the  place  of  the  present 
heavens  and  earth,  as  the  scene  of  man's  life ;  (4)  the  laws  of 
social  organization  must  be  radically  changed,  since  in  heaven 
there  will  be  no  marriage,  but  a  social  order  analogous  to  that 
of  the  "angels  of  God"  introduced. 

2d.  The  following  elements  are  essential,  and  therefore 
unchangeable.  (1.)  Man  will  continue  ever  to  exist,  as  com- 
pounded of  two  natures,  spiritual  and  material.  (2.)  He  is 
essentially  intellectual,  and  must  live  by  knowledge.  (3.)  He 
is  essentially  active,  and  must  have  work  to  do.  (4.)  Man  can, 
as  a  finite  creature,  know  God  only  mediately,  i.  e ,  through 
his  works  of  creation  and  providence,  the  experience  of  his 
gracious  work  upon  our  hearts,  and  through  his  incarnate  Son, 
who  is  the  image  of  his  person,  and  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead 
bodily.  God  will  therefore  in  heaven  continue  to  teach  man 
through  his  works,  and  to  act  upon  him  by  means  of  motives 
addressed  to  his  will  through  his  understanding.  (5.)  The 
memory  of  man  never  finally  loses  the  slightest  impression, 
and  it  will  belong  to  the  perfection  of  the  heavenly  state  that 
every  experience  acquired  in  the  past  will  always  be  within 
the  perfect  control  of  the  will.  (6.)  Man  is  essentially  a  social 
being.     This,  taken  in  connection  with  the  preceding  pointy 


580  HEAVEN  AND    HELL. 

indicates  the  conclusion  that  the  associations,  as  well  as  the 
experience  of  our  earthly  life,  will  cany  all  of  their  natural 
consequences  with  them  into  the  new  mode  of  existence, 
except  as  far  as  they  are  necessarily  modified  (not  lost)  by 
the  change.  (7.)  Man's  life  is  essentially  an  eternal  progress 
towards  infinite  perfection.  (8.)  All  the  known  analogies  of 
God's  works  in  creation,  in  his  providence  in  the  material  and 
moral  world,  and  in  his  dispensation  of  grace  (1  Cor.  xii.  5-28), 
indicate  that  in  heaven  saints  will  differ  among  themselves 
both  as  to  inherent  capacities  and  qualities,  and  as  to  relative 
rank  and  office.  These  differences  will  doubtless  be  deter- 
mined (a)  by  constitutional  differences  of  natural  capacity, 
(]))  by  gracious  rewards  in  heaven  corresponding  in  kind  and 
degree  to  the  gracious  fruitfulness  of  the  individual  on  earth, 
(c)  bv  the  absolute  sovereignty  of  the  Creator. — Matt.  xvi.  27 ; 
Horn'  ii.  6 ;  1  Cor.  xii.  4-28. 

5.  What  are  the  principal  terms,  literal  and  figurative,  ivhich 
are  applied  in  Scripture  to  the  future  condition  of  the  reprrobate? 

As  a  place,  it  is  sometimes  literally  designated  by  aidr/?, 
Hades,  and  sometimes  by  yeswa,  both  translated  hell. — Matt. 
v.  22,  29,  30;  Luke  xvi.  23.  Also  by  the  phrase,  "place  of  tor- 
ment."— Luke  xvi.  28.  As  a  condition  of  suffering,  it  is  literally 
designated  by  the  phrases,  "wrath  of  God,"  Kom.  ii.  5,  and 
"second  death,"  Rev.  xxi.  8. 

Figurative  terms. — Everlasting  fire,  prepared  for  the  devil 
and  his  angels. — Matt.  xxv.  41.  The  hell  of  fire,  where  the 
worm  dieth  not,  and  the  fire  is  not  quenched. — Mark  ix.  44. 
The  lake  which  burnetii  with  fire  and  brimstone. — Rev.  xxi.  8. 
Bottomless  pit. — Rev.  ix.  2.  The  dreadful  nature  of  this  abode 
of  the  wicked  is  implied  in  such  expressions  as  "  outer  dark- 
ness," the  place  "where  there  is  weeping  and  gnashing  of 
teeth,"  Matt.  viii.  12;  "I  am  tormented  in  this  flame,"  Luke 
xvi.  24;  "unquenchable  fire,"  Luke  iii.  17;  "furnace  of  fire," 
Matt.  xiii.  42;  "blackness  of  darkness,"  Jude  13;  "torment  in 
fire  and  brimstone,"  Rev.  xiv.  10;  "the  smoke  of  their  torment 
ascendeth  forever  and  ever,  and  they  have  no  rest  day  nor 
night,"  Rev.  xiv.  11.— Kitto's  "Bib.  Ency." 

6.  What  do  tJve  Scriptures  teach  as  to  the  nature  of  future 
punishments  ? 

The  terras  used  in  Scripture  to  describe  these  sufferings  are 
evidently  figurative,  yet  they  certainly  establish  the  following 
points.  These  sufferings  will  consist— 1st.  In  the  loss  of  all 
good,  whether  natural,  as  granted  through  Adam,  or  gracious, 
us  offered  through  Christ.     2d.  In  all  the  natural  consequences 


THE    PENALTY   OF   SIN  ENDLESS    SUFFERING,  581 

of  unrestrained  sin,  judicial  abandonment,  utter  alienation  from 
God,  and  the  awful  society  of  lost  men  and  devils. — 2  Thess.  i.  9. 
3d.  In  the  positive  infliction  of  torment,  God's  wrath  and  curse 
descending  upon  both  the  moral  and  physical  nature  of  its 
objects.  The  Scriptures  also  establish  the  fact  that  these  suf- 
ferings must  be — 1st.  Inconceivably  dreadful  in  degree.  2d. 
Endless  in  duration.  3d.  Various  in  degree,  proportionately  to 
the  deserts  of  the  subject. — Matt.  x.  15;  Luke  xii.  48. 

7.  What  is  the  usage  of  the  ivords,  diojv,  eternity,  and  dia>vio<>, 
eternal,  in  the  Neio  Testament,  and  the  argument  thence  derived 
establishing  t/ie  endless  duration  of  future  'punishment  ? 

1st.  The  Greek  language  possesses  no  more  emphatic  terms 
with  which  to  express  the  idea  of  endless  duration  than  these. 
2d.  Although  they  are  sometimes  employed  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment to  designate  limited  duration,  yet,  in  the  vast  majority 
of  instances,  they  evidently  designate  unlimited  duration.  3d. 
They  are  used  to  express  the  endless  duration  of  God.  (1.)  dtcov 
is  thus  used,  1  Tim.  i.  17,  and  as  applied  to  Christ,  Rev.  i.  18. 
(2.)  dicjvios  is  thus  used,  Rom.  xvi.  26,  and  as  applied  to  the 
Holy  Ghost. — Heb.  ix.  14.  4th.  They  are  used  to  express  the 
endless  duration  of  the  future  happiness  of  the  saints.  (1.)  dioov 
is  thus  used. — John  vi.  57,  58;  2  Cor.  ix.  9.  (2.)  diooviot  is  thus 
used. — Matt.  xix.  29 ;  Mark  x.  30 ;  John  iii.  15 ;  Rom.  ii.  7.  5th. 
In  Matt.  xxv.  46,  the  very  same  word  is  used  in  a  single  clause 
to  define  at  once  the  duration  of  the  future  happiness  of  the 
saints,  and  the  misery  of  the  lost.     Thus  the  Scriptures  do  ex- 

f>ressly  declare  that  the  duration  of  the  future  misery  of  the 
ost  is  to  be  in  precisely  the  same  sense  unending,  as  is  either 
the  life  of  God,  or  the  blessedness  of  the  saints.  See  the  learned, 
independent,  and  conclusive  critical  examination  of  the  New 
Testament  usage  of  these  words  by  the  late  Prof.  Moses  Stuart, 
"Stuart's  Essays  on  Future  Punishment,"  published  Presby. 
Board  of  Publication. 

8.  What  evidence  for  the  truth  on  this  subject  is  furnished  by 
the  New  Testament  usage  of  the  word  di'dios? 

This  word,  formed  from  dei,  always,  forever,  signifies,  in 
classical  Greek,  eternal.  It  occurs  only  twice  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, Rom.  i.  20,  "  even  his  eternal  power  and  Godhead,"  and 
Jude  6,  "Angels  reserved  in  everlasting  chains."  But  lost  men 
share  the  fate  of  lost  angels. — Matt.  xxv.  41 ;  Rev.  xx.  10.  Thus 
the  same  word  expresses  the  duration  of  the  Godhead  and  of 
the  sufferings  of  the  lost. 


682  HEAVEN  AND    HELL, 

9.  What  other  evidence  do  the  Scriptures  furnish  on  this  subject  ? 

1st.  There  is  nothing  in  the  Scriptures  which,  even  by  the 
most  remote  implication,  suggests  that  the  sufferings  of  the 
lost  shall  ever  end. 

2d.  The  constant  application  to  the  subject  of  such  figura- 
tive language  as,  "fire  that  shall  not  be  quenched,"  "fire  un- 
quenchable," "the  worm  that  never  dies,"  "bottomless  pit,"  the 
necessity  of  paying  the  "uttermost  farthing,"  "the  smoke  of 
their  torment  arising  forever  and  ever,"  Luke  iii.  17;  Mark  ix. 
45,  46;  Rev.  xiv.  10,  11,  is  consistent  only  with  the  conviction 
that  God  wills  us  to  believe  on  his  authority  that  future  punish- 
ments are  literally  endless.  It  is  said  of  those  who  commit 
the  unpardonable  sin  that  they  shall  never  be  forgiven,  "neither 
in  this  world  nor  in  that  which  is  to  come." — Matt.  xii.  32. 

It  is  argued  that  this  language  is  figurative,  and  the  dictum 
is  quoted  "  Theologia  symbolica  non  est  demonstrativa."  This  is 
true.  But  of  what  are  these  the  figures?  What  does  God  in- 
tend to  signify  by  such  symbols?  They  may  unquestionably 
be  pulled  to  pieces  severally,  and  their  meaning  brought  into 
doubt  in  detail.  But  it  must  be  remembered — (1.)  That  this 
language  is  characteristic  of  all  God's  revelations  to  us  of  the 
future  of  those  who  die  impenitent.  Such  descriptions  color 
uniformly  the  whole  presentation.  (2.)  The  Bible  was  intended 
for  popular  instruction.  Hence  the  obvious  meaning  must  have 
been  the  one  intended  to  be  conveyed,  and  hence  the  one  to 
which  the  divine  veracity  is  pledged.  This  is  especially  a 
weighty  consideration  in  the  case  of  this  doctrine,  because — 
{a.)  It  is  a  practical  one  of  personal  concernment,  (b.)  The 
language  occurs  frequently,  and  strikes  the  eye  of  every  reader, 
(c.)  The  entire  historical  church  (with  only  individual  excep- 
tions) have,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  interpreted  it  in  the  sense  of 
endless  suffering.  And  this  in  spite  of  the  constant  and  tremen- 
dous pressure  of  human  desires  toward  the  opposite  conclusion. 

10.  What  presumption  on  this  subject  is  afforded  by  reason  and 
txperience  ? 

The  Scriptures  teach  us — (1.)  That  man  is  dead  in  sin  and 
morally  impotent.  (2.)  That  repentance  and  faith  are  wrought 
in  the  soul  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  Experience  teaches  us  that 
repentance  and  faith  are  as  duties  exceedingly  difficult  under 
the  most  favorable  conditions.  Reason  and  experience  unite 
in  teaching  us  that  they  become  more  difficult  and  unusual  the 
longer  a  person  lives  and  the  more  definitely  his  moral  char- 
acter and  habits  are  fixed. 

1st.  The  most  favorable  possible  conditions  are  afforded  in 


THEORIES  OF  ANNIHILATION  AND  RESTORATION.       583 

this  life.     Youth,  immature  character,  the  word  and  the  Spirit, 
and  the  providence  of  God  and  the  Christian  Church.     Su 

Eernatural  demonstrations  and  purgatorial  sufferings  would 
ave  no  equal  moral  effect.  "If  they  hear  not  Moses  and  the 
prophets,  neither  will  they  be  persuaded  though  one  rose  from 
the  dead." — Luke  xvi.  31. 

2d.  The  law  of  habit  and  fixed  moral  character  leads  to  the 
conclusion,  that  the  hope  of  a  favorable  change  must  rapidly 
decrease  in  proportion  as  it  is  delayed. 

11.  What  tivo  views  on  this  subject  have  been  held  by  different 
parties  in  opposition  to  the  faith  of  the  whole  Christian  Church,  and 
tlie  clear  teaching  of  God's  word  ? 

I.  That  of  the  total  extinction  of  the  being  of  the  finally 
reprobate,  as  the  sentence  of  the  "  second  death,"  after  the  last 
Judgment.  This  doctrine  is  styled  popularly  "The  Annihila- 
tion of  the  Wicked,"  and  by  its  advocates  "  Conditional  Immor- 
tality." It  has  been  advocated  ably  in  "  Debt  and  Grace  as 
related  to  the  Doctrine  of  a  Future  Life,"  by  C.  F.  Hudson,  and  in 
"The  Duration  and  Nature  of  Future  Punishment,"  by  Henry 
Constable,  and  "View  of  Scripture  Revelation  concerning  a 
Future  State,"  by  Archb.  Whately,  and  in  "  Life  in  Christ,"  by 
Edward  White. 

They  argue  that  the  word  "death"  means  always  "cessation 
of  being,"  and  "eternal  destruction"  means  always  the  "putting 
out  of  existence." 

We  answer — (1.)  They  fail  utterly  in  their  attempt  to  show 
that  the  words  and  phrases  cited  ever  have,  and  much  more 
that  they  always  have,  the  sense  contended  for.  (2.)  Their 
doctrine  is  in  plain  contradiction  of  the  uniform  representation 
of  Scripture  as  to  the  ultimate  state  of  the  finally  impenitent  as 
illustrated  above,  Ques.  9.  (3.)  Their  doctrine  is  in  contradic- 
tion of  the  natural  and  universal  instinct  of  immortality  wit- 
nessed to  by  the  religions  and  literatures  of  all  nations,  whether 
heathen,  Jewish,  or  Christian. 

II.  The  opinion  of  those  who  agree  in  general  in  teaching 
the  future  restoration  of  sinners  after  an  indefinite  period  of 
purifying  discipline  subsequent  to  death,  whether  in  the  inter- 
mediate state  or  after  the  judgment  (see  above,  Ch.  XXXVII., 
Ques.  21).  This  view  rests,  (1)  upon  a  class  of  texts  presumed 
*o  teach  the  restitution  of  all  things  as  Acts  hi.  21;  Eph.  i.  10; 
Col.  i.  19,  20,  etc.  (2.)  Upon  what  they  claim  to  be  a  moral 
intuition  that  endless  punishment  would  be  unworthy  of  God. 

We  answer — 1st.  The  passages  of  Scripture  upon  which  the 
argument  is  based  would  be  consistent  with  this  view  of  ulti- 
mate universal  salvation,  if  there  were  no  explicit  statements 


684  HEAVEN  AND    HELL. 

of  Scripture  to  the  contrary.  Each  class  of  Scripture  must  be 
interpreted  in  view  of  the  other.  And  it  is  self-evident  that 
the  general  and  indefinite  must  be  ruled  by  the  definite  and  ex- 
plicit. It  is  an  axiom  that  the  phrase  "all"  and  "all  things"  in- 
clude more  or  less  according  to  the  subject.  We  gladly  admit — 
(1)  that  all  in  Christ  shall  be  made  alive,  and  (2)  that  he  will 
be  made  head  of  all  things  absolutely  without  exception,  in  the 
sense  that  the  entire  universe,  including  friends  and  foes,  shall 
be  subjected  to  his  royal  supremacy,  all  revolt  subdued,  and 
each  class  put  into  its  own  sphere. — See  below,  Ques.  14. 

2d.  The  "intuitions"  upon  which  the  doctrine  is  founded  are 
shown  below,  Ques.  12  and  13,  not  to  be  trustworthy. 

3d.  See  above,  Ques.  10,  as  the  hope  of  moral  reformation 
in  another  life  is  not  accordant  with  the  representations  of 
Scripture,  so  it  is  not  confirmed  by  the  lessons  of  reason  and 
experience. 

12.  What  objections  are  urged  against  this  doctrine  derived  from 
tJie  justice  of  God? 

The  justice  of  God  requires — (1.)  That  none  should  suffer 
for  that  for  which  they  are  not  responsible.  (2.)  That  punish- 
ment should  in  every  case  be  exactly  proportioned  to  the  guilt 
of  the  subject. 

But  it  is  objected — 1st.  Multitudes  in  Christian  as  well  aa 
in  heathen  lands  are  not  responsible  for  their  impenitency,  be- 
cause they  have  never  in  their  whole  lives  had  an  opportunity 
of  knowing  or  of  receiving  Christ. 

We  answer — that  the  direct  statements  of  the  Bible,  the 
whole  analogy  of  the  Christian  system,  and  the  experience 
of  all  Christians,  unite  in  affirming  that  all  human  nature  is 
guilty  and  deserving  of  the  wrath  and  curse  of  God  anterior  to 
the  gift  or  the  rejection  of  Christ.  If  it  were  not  so  Christ  need 
not  have  been  given  to  expiate  guilt.  If  it  were  not  so  Christ 
would  be  "  dead  in  vain,"  and  salvation  would  be  of  debt  and 
not  of  GRACE. 

It  is  objected — 2d.  No  sin  of  a  finite  creature  can  deserve 
an  infinite  punishment,  but  all  endless  punishment  is  infinite. 

We  answer — that  the  word  infinite  in  this  connection  is 
misleading.  It  is  plain  that  endless  sin  deserves  endless  punish- 
ment, and  that  is  all  the  Scriptures  or  the  Church  teach.  One 
sin  deserves  the  wrath  and  curse  of  God.  He  is  under  no  obli- 
gation in  justice  to  provide  a  redemption.  The  instant  a  soul 
sins  it  is  cut  off  from  the  communion  and  life  of  God.  As  long 
as  it  continues  in  that  state  it  will  continue  to  sin.  As  long  as 
it  continues  to  sin,  it  will  continue  to  deserve  his  wrath  and 
curse.     It  is  obvious  that  the  sinful  tempers  and  conduct  in- 


OBJECTIONS    STATED    AND    ANSWERED.  585 

dulged  in  hell  will  deserve  and  receive  punishment  as  strictly 
as  those  previously  indulged  in  this  life.  Otherwise  the  mon- 
strous principle  would  be  true  that  the  worse  a  sinner  becomes 
the  less  is  he  worthy  of  blame  or  punishment. 

It  is  objected — 3d.  The  infinite  does  not  admit  of  degrees, 
yet  the  guilt  of  different  sinners  is  various. 

We  answer — this  is  a  dishonest  cavil.  It  is  plain  that  suf- 
ferings alike  endless  may  vary  indefinitely  in  degree. 

It  is  objected — 4th.  That  the  moral  difference  between  the 
lowest  saint  saved  and  the  most  amiable  sinner  lost  may  be 
imperceptible,  yet  the  difference  of  destiny  is  infinite. 

We  answer — that  this  is  all  true,  but  the  ground  of  the 
treatment  of  the  most  unworthy  believer  is  the  righteousness 
of  Christ,  and  the  ground  of  the  treatment  of  the  least  unworthy 
unbeliever  is  his  own  character  and  conduct. 

13.  What  objection  drawn  from  the  benevolence  of  God  is  urged 
against  this  doctrine  ? 

It  is  claimed — 1st.  That  the  benevolence  of  God  prompts 
him  to  do  all  in  his  power  to  promote  their  happiness.  And 
as  we  have  no  right  to  limit  that  power,  we  are  warranted  to 
hope  that  he  will  ultimately  secure  the  happiness  of  all. 

We  answer — (1.)  God's  benevolence  prompts  him  to  secure 
the  happiness  of  all  his  creatures  as  far  as  that  is  consistent 
with  his  other  attributes  of  wisdom,  holiness,  and  justice. 
(2.)  We  have  constant  experience  that  he  does  inflict  upon 
his  creatures  evils  which  have  no  tendency  and  no  influence 
in  promoting  the  ultimate  happiness  of  the  individuals  con- 
cerned. (3)  The  benevolence  of  the  supreme  Moral  Governor, 
as  concerned  for  the  peace  and  purity  of  the  universe,  concurs 
with  his  justice  in  demanding  the  execution  of  the  full  penalty 
of  the  law  upon  all  law-breakers,  especially  upon  all  who  have 
aggravated  their  guilt  by  the  rejection  of  his  crucified  Son. 

It  is  claimed — 2d.  That  the  cultivated  intuitions  of  Christian 
men  assure  them  that  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  moral  perfec- 
tions of  God  frst  to  bring  into  existence  immortal  beings  under 
conditions  common  to  the  majority  of  men,  and  then  to  doom 
them  to  an  after-life  of  endless  misery. 

We  ANswer — (1.)  The  permission  of  sin  in  general  is  a  mys- 
tery. The  ante-natal  forfeiture  of  human  beings  in  Adam  is  a 
mystery.  But  every  enlightened  human  being  knows  himself 
to  be  without  excuse,  and  worthy  of  God's  wrath.  (2.)  God 
has  shown  his  sense  of  the  terrible  guilt  of  men  by  the  penalty 
he  executed  upon  his  own  Son,  when  he  suffered  in  our  place. 
(3.)  It  is  absurd  for  us  to  claim  that  our  intuitions  are  adequate 
to  determine  what  it  will  be  right  for  the  Moral  Governor  of  all 


586  HEAVEN  AND    HELL. 

the  universe  to  do  with  finally  impenitent  sinners.  Doubtless 
righteousness  in  him  is  precisely  what  righteousness  is  in  a  per- 
fectly righteous  man.  But  we  do  not  know  all  the  conditions 
of  the  case,  and  our  "intuitions"  are  darkened  by  sin  (Heb.  iii. 
13).  Hence  our  only  source  of  reliable  knowledge  is  the  word  of 
God,  and  that,  as  we  have  seen,  gives  us  no  ground  to  hope 
for  repentance  beyond  the  grave.  (2.)  It  is  absolutely  cruel 
to  follow  the  example  of  the  devil  with  Eve  in  persuading  the 
people  that  after  all  God  may  be  more  benevolent  than  the 
language  of  his  word  implies  (Gen.  iii.  3,  4). 

14.  What  argument  for  Vie  future  restoration  of  aU  rational 
creatures  to  holiness  and  happiness  is  founded  upon  Rom.  v.  18,  19 ; 
1  Cor.  xv.  22-28;  Eph.  i.  10;  Col.  i.  19,  20? 

In  regard  to  Rom.  v.  18,  it  is  argued  that  the  phrase  "all 
men "  must  have  precisely  the  same  extent  of  application  in 
the  one  clause  as  in  the  other.  We  answer,  1st,  the  phrase 
"  all  men  "  is  often  used  in  Scripture  in  connections  which  nec- 
essarily restrict  the  sense. — John  iii.  26 ;  xii.  32.  2d.  In  this 
case  the  phrase  "  all  men  "  is  evidently  defined  by  the  qualify- 
ing phrase,  ver.  17,  "who  have  received  abundance  of  grace 
and  the  gift  of  righteousness."  3d.  This  contrast  between  the 
"  all  men  "  in  Adam  and  the  "  all  men  "  in  Christ  is  consistent 
with  the  analogy  of  the  whole  gospel. 

In  regard  to  1  Cor.  xv.  22,  the  argument  is  the  same  as  that 
drawn  from  Rom.  v.  18.  From  verses  25-28  it  is  argued  that 
the  great  end  of  Christ's  mediatorial  reign  must  be  the  restora- 
tion of  every  creature  to  holiness  and  blessedness.  To  this  we 
answer,  1st,  this  is  a  strained  interpretation  put  upon  these 
words,  which  they  do  not  necessarily  bear,  and  which  is  clearly 
refuted  by  the  many  direct  testimonies  we  have  cited  from 
Scripture  above.  2d.  It  is  inconsistent  with  the  scope  of  Paul's 
subject  in  this  passage.  He  says  that  from  eternity  to  the 
ascension  God  reigned  absolutely.  From  the  ascension  to  the 
restitution  of  all  things  God  reigns  in  the  person  of  the  God- 
man  as  Mediator.  From  the  restitution  to  eternity  God  will 
again  reign  directly  as  absolute  God. 

The  ultimate  salvation  of  all  creatures  is  argued  also  from 
Eph.  i.  10;  Col.  i.  19,  20.  In  both  passages,  however,  the  "all 
things"  signify  the  whole  company  of  angels  and  redeemed 
men,  who  are  gathered  under  the  dominion  of  Christ.  Because, 
1st,  in  both  passages  the  subject  of  discourse  is  the  church,  not 
the  universe ;  2d,  in  both  passages  the  "  all  things  "  is  limited 
by  the  qualifying  phrases,  "  the  predestinated,"  "  we  who  first 
trusted  in  Christ,    "the  accepted  in  the  beloved,"  "if  ye  con- 


VIEW   OF   SOME    ARMINIANS.  587 

tinue  in  the  faith,"  etc.,  etc.     See  Hodge's  "  Commentaries  on 
Romans,  1st  Corinthians,  and  Ephesians." 

15.  What  opinions  have  prevailed  among  extreme  Armenians 
on  this  subject  ? 

From  their  fundamental  principles  as  to  the  relation  of 
ability  to  responsibility,  they  must  hold  that  none  can  perish 
who  have  not  in  some  form  and  degree  or  another  had  an  op- 
portunity of  availing  themselves  of  salvation  through  Christ. 

In  order  to  avoid  the  obvious  inferences  from  the  broad 
facts  of  the  case,  some  have  supposed  that  God  may  extend  the 
probation  of  some  beyond  this  life. — Scot's  "  Christian  Life." 

Limborch  (Lib.  iv.,  c.  xi.)  says,  that  probably  all  who  make 
a  good  use  of  their  light  in  this  world  will  be  saved,  but  if  we 
reject  this,  rather  than  believe  that  the  divine  goodness  could 
condemn  to  hell  fire  these  (the  ignorant)  it  appears  better  to 
hold  that  as  there  is  a  threefold  estate  of  mankind  in  this  life, — 
of  believers,  of  unbelievers,  and  of  the  ignorant, — so  there  is  also 
a  threefold  estate  after  this  life :  of  eternal  life  for  believers,  of 
infernal  sufferings  for  unbelievers,  and  besides  these  the  status 
ignorantiurn. 


CHAPTER    XLI. 

SACRAMENTS. 

1.  What  is  the  etymology  and  ivhat  the  classical  and  patristic 
usage  of  the  ivord  " sacr ■amentum?" 

1st.  It  is  derived  from  sacro,  are,  to  malce  sacred,  dedicate  to 
gods  or  sacred  uses. 

2d.  In  its  classical  usage  it  signified — (1.)  That  by  which 
a  person  binds  himself  to  another  to  perform  any  thing.  (2.) 
Thence  a  sum  deposited  with  the  court  as  pledge,  and  which, 
if  forfeited,  was  devoted  to  sacred  uses.  (3.)  Also  an  oath, 
especially  a  soldier's  oath  of  faithful  consecration  to  his  coun- 
try's service. — Ainsworth's  "  Die." 

3d.  The  Fathers  used  this  word  in  a  conventional  sense  as 
equivalent  to  the  Greek  fiv6Ti)piov,  a  mystery,  i.  e.,  something 
unknown  until  revealed,  and  hence  an  emblem,  a  type,  a  rite 
having  some  latent  spiritual  meaning  known  only  to  the  in- 
itiated, or  instructed. 

The  Greek  fathers  applied  the  term  nv6rr}piov  to  the  Chris- 
tian ordinances  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  inasmuch  as 
these  rites  had  a  spiritual  significance,  and  were  thus  a  form 
of  revelation  of  divine  truth. 

The  Latin  fathers  used  the  word  "sacramentum"  as  a  Latin 
word,  in  its  own  proper  sense,  for  any  thing  sacred  in  itself, 
or  having  the  power  of  binding,  or  consecrating  men,  and  in 
addition  they  used  it  as  the  equivalent  of  the  Greek  word 
Hv6rripiovi  i.  e.,  in  the  entirely  different  sense  of  a  revealed 
truth,  or  a  sign  or  symbol  revealing  a  truth  otherwise  hidden. 
This  fact  has  given  to  the  usage  of  this  word  "  sacramentum," 
in  the  scholastic  theology,  an  injurious  latitude  and  indefinite- 
ness  of  meaning.  Tims  in  Eph.  iii.  3,  4,  9;  v.  32;  1  Tim.  iii.  16; 
Rev.  i.  20,  the  word  ixv6vr}pxov  truly  bears  the  sense  of  "the 
revelation  of  a  truth  undiscoverable  by  reason,"  and  it  is  trans- 
lated in  such  passages  in  the  English  version,  mystery,  and  in 


THEIR    DEFINITION.  589 

the  Latin  vulgate,  "  sacramenlum."  Thus  the  Romish  church 
uses  the  same  word  in  two  entirely  different  senses,  applying 
it  indifferently  to  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  "  as  binding 
ordinances,"  and  to  the  union  of  believers  with  Christ  as  a  re- 
vealed truth. — Eph.  v.  32.  And  hence  they  absurdly  infer  that 
matrimony  is  a  sacrament. 

2.  What  is  the  definition  of  a  sacrament,  as  given  by  the  Fathers, 
tlue  Schoolmen,  the  Romish  Church,  the  Church  of  England,  and  in 
our  own  Standards  ? 

1st.  Augustine's  definition  is  "  Signum  rei  sacrae,"  or  "  Sac- 
ramentum  est  invisibilis  gratise  visibile  signum,  ad  nostram 
justificationem  institutum;"  "accedit  verbum  ad  elementum, 
et  fit  sacramentum." 

2d.  Victor  of  St.  Hugo:  "Sacramentum  est  visibilis  forma 
invisibilis  gratise  in  eo  collatse." 

3d.  The  Council  of  Trent:  "A  sacrament  is  something  pre- 
sented to  the  senses,  which  has  the  power,  by  divine  institu- 
tion, not  only  of  signifying,  but  also  of  efficiently  conveying 
grace."— "  Cat.  Rom.,"  Part  II.,  Chap,  i.,  Q.  6. 

4th.  The  Church  of  England,  in  the  25th  article  of  religion, 
affirms  that  "  Sacraments  instituted  by  Christ  are  not  only  the 
badges  and  tokens  of  the  profession  of  Christian  men,  but 
rather  they  be  certain  sure  witnesses  and  effectual  signs  of 
grace,  and  of  God's  good  will  towards  us,  by  the  which  he 
doth  work  inwardly  in  us,  and  doth  not  only  quicken,  but  also 
strengthen  and  confirm  our  faith  in  him." 

5th.  The  "Westminster  Assembly's  Larger  Cat.,"  Q.  162 
and  163,  affirms  that  a  "  Sacrament  is  a  holy  ordinance  insti- 
tuted by  Christ  in  his  church,  to  signify,  seal,  and  exhibit  to 
those  who  are  within  the  covenant  of  grace  the  benefits  of  his 
mediation,  to  increase  their  faith  and  all  other  graces,  to  oblige 
them  to  obedience,  to  testify  and  cherish  their  love  and  com- 
munion with  one  another,  and  to  distinguish  them  from  those 
that  are  without."  "The  parts  of  a  sacrament  are  two,  the 
one  an  outward  and  sensible  sign  used  according  to  Christ's 
own  appointment;  the  other  an  inward  spiritual  grace  thereby 
signified." 

3.  On  lohat  principles  is  such  a  definition  to  he  constructed  ? 

1st.  It  is  to  be  remembered  that  the  term  "sacrament"  does 
not  occur  in  the  Bible. 

2d.  From  the  extreme  latitude  with  which  this  term  lias 
been  used,  both  in  the  sense  proper  to  it  as  a  Latin  word,  and 
iu  that  attributed  to  it  as  the  conventional  equivalent  of  the 


590  SACRAMENTS. 

Greek  word  nvtirrjpiov,  it  is  evident  that  no  definition  of  a  gos- 
pel ordinance  can  be  arrived  at  by  a  mere  reference  either  to  the 
etymology  or  ecclesiastical  usage  of  the  word  "sacramentum.' 

3d.  The  definition  of  a  class  of  gospel  ordinances  can  be 
properly  formed  only  by  a  comparison  of  all  the  Scriptures 
teach  concerning  the  origin,  nature,  and  design  of  those  ordi- 
nances universally  recognized  as  belonging  to  that  class,  and 
thus  by  determining  those  essential  elements  which  are  com- 
mon to  each  member  of  the  class,  and  which  distinguish  them 
afe  a  class  from  all  other  divine  ordinances. 

4th.  Those  ordinances  which  are  "universally  recognized" 
as  sacraments  are  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper.  "Thomas 
Aquinas  agreed  with  other  theologians,  'Summa,'  P.  III.,  Qu. 
62,  Art.  5,  in  regarding  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  as 
1  potissima  sacramenta.' " — Hagenbach.  The  true  question  then 
is,  Are  there  any  other  divine  ordinances  having  the  essential  char- 
acteristics which  are  common  to  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  ? 

4.  How  many  sacraments  do  Romanists  make,  and  how  may 
the  controversy  between  them  and  the  Protestants  be  decided  ? 

The  Roman  church  teaches  that  there  are  seven  sacraments, 
viz.,  baptism,  confirmation,  the  Lord's  Supper,  penance,  extreme 
unction,  orders,  marriage. 

We  maintain,  however,  that  only  baptism  and  the  Lord's 
Supper  can  be  properly  embraced  under  either  the  Protestant 
or  the  Catholic  definitions  of  a  sacrament,  as  given  above,  Ques- 
tion 2. 

1st.  Confirmation,  penance,  and  extreme  unction  are  not 
divine  institutions,  having  no  warrant  whatever  in  Scripture. 

2d.  That  marriage  instituted  by  God  in  Paradise,  and  ordi- 
nation to  the  gospel  ministry  instituted  by  Christ,  although 
both  divine  institutions,  are  evidently  not  ordinances  of  the 
same  kind  with  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  do  not 
meet  the  conditions  of  either  definitions  of  a  sacrament,  since 
they  neither  signify  nor  convey  any  inward  grace. 

5.  What  two  things  are  included  in  every  sacrament  ? 

1st.  "An  outward  visible  sign  used  according  to  Christ's 
own  appointment;  2d,  an  inward  spiritual  grace  thereby  sig- 
nified."—"L.  Cat.,"  Q.  163.  See  below,  "Apol.  Aug.  Couf." 
(Hase),  p.  267. 

The  Romanists,  in  the  language  of  the  Schoolmen,  distin- 
guish between  the  matter  and  the  form  of  a  sacrament.  The 
matter  is  that  part  of  the  sacrament  subjected  to  the  senses,  and 
significant  of  grace,  e.  g.,  the  water,  and  the  act  of  applying  the 


RELATION   OF  SIGN    TO    GRACE    SIGNIFIED.  591 

water  in  baptism,  and  the  bread  and  wine,  and  the  acts  of 
breaking  the  bread,  and  pouring  out  the  wine  in  the  Lord's 
Supper.  The  form  is  the  divine  word  used  by  the  minister  in 
administering  the  elements,  devoting  them  thus  to  the  office  of 
signifying  grace. 

6.  What,  according  to  the  Romanists,  is  the  relation  between  the 
sign  and  the  grace  signified  ? 

They  hold  that  in  consequence  of  the  divine  institution,  and 
in  virtue  of  the  "power  of  the  Omnipotent  which  exists  in 
them,"  the  grace  signified  is  contained  in  the  very  nature  of 
the  sacraments  themselves,  so  that  it  is  always  conferred,  ex 
opere  operato  (i.  e.,  ex  vi  ipsius  actionis  sacramentalis),  upon 
every  receiver  of  them  who  does  not  oppose  a  positive  obstacle 
thereto.  Thus  they  understand  the  "sacramental  union,"  or 
relation  between  the  sign  and  the  grace  signified  to  be  physical, 
or  that  which  subsists  between  a  substance  and  its  properties, 
i.  e.,  the  virtue  of  conferring  grace  is,  in  the  sacraments,  as  the 
virtue  of  burning  is  in  fire. — "  Council  of  Trent,"  Sess.  7,  Cans. 
6  and  8.  "  Cat.  Rom.,"  Part  II.,  Chap,  i.,  Q.  18.  Bellarmin,  "De 
Sacram.,"  2,  1. 

7.  What  is  the  Zwinglian  doctrine  on  this  subject  ? 

Zwingle,  the  reformer  of  Switzerland,  held  a  position  at  the 
opposite  extreme  to  that  of  the  Romish  church,  viz.,  that  the 
sign  simply  represents  by  appropriate  symbols,  and  symbolical 
actions,  the  grace  to  which  it  is  related.  Thus  the  sacraments 
are  only  effective  means  of  the  objective  presentation  of  the 
truth  symbolized. 

8.  In  ivhat  sense  is  the  word  "  exhibit "  used  in  our  standards 
in  reference  to  this  subject  ? 

Compare  "  Con.  of  Faith,"  Chap,  xxvii.,  Sec.  3,  and  Chap, 
xxviii.,  Sec.  6,  and  "  L.  Cat,"  Q.  162. 

This  word  is  derived  from  the  Latin  word  "  exhibeo,"  which 
bore  the  twofold  sense  of  conveying  and  of  disclosing.  It  is  evi- 
dent that  the  term  "exhibit"  has  retained  in  our  standards  the 
former  sense  of  conveying,  conferring.  As  in  medical  language, 
"  to  exhibit  a  remedy  "  is  to  administer  it. 

9.  What  is  the  common  doctrine  of  the  Reformed  churches  as  to 
the  relation  of  the  sign  to  the  grace  signified  ? 

The  Reformed  confessions  agree  in  teaching  that  this  rela- 
tion is,  1st,  simply  moral,  i.  e.,  it  is  established  only  by  the 


592  SACRAMENTS. 

institution  and  promise  of  Christ,  and  it  depends  upon  the  right 
administration  of  the  ordinance,  and  upon  the  faith  and  knowl- 
edge of  the  recipient.  And,  2d,  that  it  is  real,  that  is,  when 
rightly  administered,  and  when  received  by  the  recipient  with 
knowledge  and  faith  they  do  really,  because  of  the  promise  of 
Christ,  seal  the  grace  signified,  and  convey  it  to  the  recipient, 
i.  e.,  the  recipient  does  receive  the  grace  with  the  sign. 

This  doctrine,  therefore,  includes,  1st,  the  Zwinglian  view, 
that  the  outward  visible  sign  truly  signifies  the  grace.  And, 
2d,  that  they  are,  as  ordinances  of  God's  appointment,  seals 
attached  to  the  promise  to  authenticate  it,  as  the  natural  phe- 
nomenon of  the  rainbow  was  made  a  seal  of  God's  promise  to 
Noah  in  virtue  of  the  divine  appointment.  3d.  That  as  seals 
thus  accompanying  a  divine  promise  by  divine  authority,  they 
do  actually  convey  the  grace  they  signify  to  those  for  whom 
that  grace  is  intended,  and  who  are  in  a  proper  spiritual  state 
to  receive  it,  "  as  a  key  conveys  admission,  a  deed  an  estate, 
the  ceremony  of  marriage  the  rights  of  marriage."  See  Tur- 
retin,  L.  xix.,  Question  4;  "Conf.  of  Faith,"  Chap,  xxvii. ;  "  L. 
Cat,"  Questions  162,  163;  "Cat.  Gene.,"  sec.  5th,  "de  Sacra- 
mentis;"  "Conf.  Faith  of  the  French  Church,"  article  34;  "Old 
Scotch  Conf,"  section  21. 

10.  What  is  the  design  of  the  sacraments  ? 

1st.  That  they  should  signify,  seal,  and  exhibit  to  those 
within  the  covenant  of  grace  the  benefits  of  Christ's  redemp- 
tion, and  thus  as  a  principal  means  of  grace  edify  the  church. 
Matt.  iii.  11;  Gen.  xvii.  11,  13;  1  Cor.  x.  2-21;  xi.  23-26;  xii. 
13;  Rom.  ii.  28,  29;  iv.  11;  vi.  3,  4;  Gal.  iii.  27;  1  Pet.  iii.  21. 

2d.  That  they  should  be  visible  badges  of  membership  in 
the  church,  to  put  a  visible  difference  between  the  professed 
followers  of  Christ  and  the  world,  Gen  xxxiv.  14;  Ex.  xii.  48; 
Eph.  ii.  19;  "Conf.  Faith,"  Chap,  xxvii.,  section  1. 


The   Romish   Doctrine  as  to  the   Efficacy  of  the   Sacraments. 

11.  What  is  the  Romish  doctrine  as  to  the  efficacy  of  the  Sac- 
raments ? 

1st.  As  shown  above,  under  Question  6,  they  hold  that  the 
sacraments  contain  the  grace  which  they  signify.  That  this 
grace-conferring  energy  is  inseparable  from  a  genuine  sacra- 
ment, and  that  as  an  objective  fact,  they  contain  it  at  all  times, 
and  present  it  alike  to  all  subjects  irrespective  of  character. 

2d.  In  every  case  of  their  application,  except  when  posi- 


ROMISH  DOCTRINE    AS    TO    THEIR    EFFICACY.  503 

tively  opposed  and  nullified,  they  effect  the  grace  they  signify, 
as  an  opus  operatum,  i.  e.,  by  the  mere  inherent  power  of  the 
sacramental  action  itself. 

12.  Upon  what  conditions  on  the  part  of  the  administrator  do 
they  believe  that  the  efficacy  of  the  sacrament  depends  ? 

The  genuineness  of  a  sacrament  on  the  part  of  the  adminis- 
trator, depends,  according  to  the  Romanists — 

1st.  On  his  being  canonically  authorized.  In  case  of  the 
sacraments  of  orders  and  confirmation  he  must  be  a  bishop  in 
communion  with  the  pope.  In  the  case  of  the  other  sacraments 
he  must  be  a  regular  popish  priest.  The  personal  character  of 
the  bishop  or  priest,  even  though  he  be  in  mortal  sin,  does  not 
prevent  the  effect. — "  Con.  Trident,"  Sess.  can.  12. 

2d.  The  administrator  must,  in  the  act,  exercise  the  posi 
tive  intention  of  effecting  what  the  church  intends  to  be  effected 
by  each  sacrament. 

Dens  (Vol.  V.,  p.  127)  says,  "To  the  valid  performance  of 
the  sacrament  is  required  the  intention  upon  the  part  of  the 
officiating  minister  of  doing  that  which  the  church  does.  The 
necessary  intention  in  the  minister  consists  in  an  act  of  his  will, 
by  which  he  wills  the  external  action  with  the  intention  of  doing 
what  the  church  does;"  that  is,  of  performing  a  valid  sacrament. 
Otherwise,  although  every  external  action  may  be  regularly  per- 
formed, the  whole  is  void.  See  "Con.  Trent,"  Sess.  7,  canon  11. 
This  leaves  the  recipient  entirely  at  the  mercy  of  the  minister, 
since  the  validity  of  the  whole  service  depends  upon  his  secret 
intention,  and  is  evidently  one  of  the  devices  of  that  anti-Chris- 
tian church  to  make  the  people  dependent  upon  the  priesthood. 

13.  What  is  the  sense  in  ivhich  Protestants  admit  "intention" 
to  be  necessary  ? 

They  admit  that  in  order  to  render  the  outward  service  a 
valid  sacrament,  it  must  be  performed  with  the  ostensible  pro- 
fessed design  of  complying  thereby  with  the  command  of  Christ, 
and  of  doing  what  he  requires  to  be  done  by  those  who  accept 
the  gospel  covenant. 

14.  What  condition  do  the  Romanists  hold  to  be  essential  to  the 
efficacy  of  a  sacrament,  on  the  part  of  the  subject  ? 

1st.  In  the  case  of  infant  baptism  no  condition  upon  the  part 
of  the  subject  is  necessary, 

2d.  On  the  part  of  adults,  the  only  condition  is  that  they 
shall  not  positively  oppose  them  by  absolute  infidelity  or  resist- 
ance of  will  {non  ponentibus  obicem).  Faith  and  repentance,  as 
38 


504  SACRAMENTS. 

these  are  possible  to  the  unregenerate  soul,  are  also  required  as 
necessary  to  the  effect  of  baptism  ("  Cat.  Rom.,"  Pt.  II.,  Chap,  ii., 
Ques.  39).  Bellarmin,  "De  Sacramentis,"  2, 1,  says  that  the  will 
to  be  baptized,  faith,  and  penitence,  are  necessary  disposition  a 
enabling  the  sacrament  to  produce  its  effect,  just  as  dryness  on 
the  part  of  wood  is  the  condition  of  the  fire  burning  it  when 
applied,  but  never  the  cause  of  the  burning. 

15.    Wliat  according  to  the  Papal  Church  are  the  effects  'produced 
by  the  sacraments? 

1st.  Justifying  (sanctifying)  grace. 

2d.  Three  of  the  sacraments,  baptism,  confirmation,  and  or- 
ders, also  impress  upon  the  subject  "a  character."  This  "sac- 
ramental character "  (from  the  Greek  word  xaPaKTVPi  a  mark, 
or  device,  engraved  or  impressed  by  a  seal)  is  a  distinctive  and 
indelible  impression  stamped  on  the  soul,  "the  twofold  effect 
of  which  is,  that  it  qualifies  us  to  receive  or  perform  something 
sacred,  and  distinguishes  one  from  another."  It  is  upon  this 
account  that  baptism  and  confirmation  are  never  repeated, 
and  that  the  authority  and  privileges  of  the  priesthood  can 
never  be  alienated. — "Cat.  Rom.,"  Part  II.,  Chap,  i.,  Q.  21-25; 
"  Council  Trent,"  Sess.  7,  can.  9. 

16.  Hoio  may  this  doctrine  be  disproved? 

That  the  sacraments  have  not  the  power  of  conveying  grace 
to  all,  whether  they  are  included  within  the  covenant  of  grace 
or  not,  or  whether  they  possess  faith  or  not,  is  certain,  because — 

1st.  They  are  seals  of  the  gospel  covenant  (see  below,  Ques- 
tion 14).  But  a  seal  merely  ratifies  a  covenant  as  a  covenant. 
It  can  convey  the  grace  promised  only  on  the  supposition  that 
the  conditions  of  the  covenant  are  fulfilled.  But  salvation  and 
every  spiritual  blessing  is  by  that  covenant  declared  to  depend 
upon  the  condition  of  faith. 

2d.  Knowledge  and  faith  are  required  as  the  prerequisite 
conditions  necessary  to  be  found  in  all  applicants,  as  the  essen- 
tial qualification  for  receiving  the  sacraments. — Acts  ii.  41; 
viii.  37;  x.  47;  Rom.  iv.  11. 

3d.  Faith  is  essential  to  render  the  sacraments  efficacious. 
Rom.  ii.  25-29;  1  Cor.  xi.  27-29;  1  Pet.  iii.  21. 

4th.  Many  who  receive  the  sacraments  are  notoriously  with- 
out the  grace  they  signify.  Witness  the  case  of  Simon  Magus, 
Acts  viii.  9-21,  and  of  many  of  the  Corinthians  and  Galatians, 
and  of  the  majority  of  nominal  Christians  in  the  present  day. 

5th.  Many  have  had  the  grace  without  the  sacraments. 
Witness  Abraham,  the  thief  upon  the  cross,  and  Cornelius  the 


LUTHERAN    VIEW  AS    TO    THEIR    EFFICACY.  595 

centurion,  and  a  multitude  of  eminent  Christians  among  the 
Society  of  Friends. 

6th.  This  doctrine  blasphemously  ties  down  the  grace  of  the 
ever  living  and  sovereign  God,  and  puts  its  entire  disposal  into 
the  hands  of  fallible  and  often  wicked  men. 

7th.  This  doctrine  is  an  essential  element  of  that  ritualistic 
and  priestly  system  which  prevailed  among  the  Pharisees,  and 
against  which  the  whole  New  Testament  is  a  protest. 

8th.  The  uniform  effect  of  this  system  has  been  to  exalt  the 
power  of  the  priests,  and  to  confound  all  knowledge  as  to  the 
nature  of  true  religion.  As  the  baptized,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
do  not  always  nor  generally  bear  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  all  rit- 
ualists agree  in  regarding  these  fruits  as  not  essential  to  salva- 
tion.    Where  this  system  prevails  vital  godliness  expires. 

Doctrine  of   Protestant  Churches  as  to  the  Efficacy   of   the 

Sacraments. 

17.  What  is  the  Lutheran  doctrine  as  to  the  efficacy  of  the 
sacraments? 

1st.  They  reject  the  popish  doctrine  that  the  sacraments 
effect  grace  ex  opere  operato. 

2d.  They  maintain  that  their  grace-conferring  efficacy  resides 
in  the  sacraments  intrinsically. 

3d.  That  as  an  objective  fact  it  is  communicated  to  every 
recipient,  whether  he  have  faith  or  not. 

4th.  But  it  takes  effect  only  in  those  who  have  true  faith  to 
receive  it.  As  the  healing  virtue  resided  in  Christ  whether  the 
woman  touched  or  not  (Matt.  ix.  20),  yet  it  would  not  have 
availed  her  unless  she  had  believed  and  touched. 

5th.  They  hold  that  this  efficacy  resides  not  in  the  sign  or 
ceremony,  but  in  the  Word  which  accompanies  the  sign  and 
constitutes  it  a  sacrament.  The  efficacy  is  not  due  to  the  mere 
moral  power  of  the  truth,  nor  to  the  faith  of  the  recipient,  but 
it  is  supernatural,  residing  in  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
But  not  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost  as  extrinsic  to  the  truth, 
but  as  dwelling  in  it,  and  inseparable  from  it — the  virtus  Spir- 
itus  Sawti  intrinsicus  accedens.  See  Krauth's  "Conservative 
Reformation,"  pp.  825-83C. 

18.  What  is  the  Zwinglian  and  Remonstrant  view  as  to  the 
same  ? 

The  tendency  of  thought  on  this  subject  first  developed  by 
Zwingle  was  afterward  carried  out  more  fully  by  the  Remon- 
strants of  the  next  century,  and  to  a  greater  extent  by  the 


596  SACRAMENTS. 

Socinians.  Low  views  as  to  the  nature  and  efficacy  of  the 
sacraments  have  also  largely  prevailed  in  this  century  among 
all  evangelical  churches,  in  reaction  from  the  extreme  views  01 
the  Romanists  and  Ritualists.  For  a  general  statement  of  this 
mode  of  thought  see  above,  Ques.  7. 

19.  State  the  doctrine  of  the  Reformed  churches  on  this  subject. 

As  to  their  doctrine  of  the  relation  of  the  sign  to  the  grace 
signified,  see  above,  Ques.  9. 

Hence  as  to  the  efficacy  of  the  sacraments  the  Reformed — 
1st.  Deny  that  they  confer  grace  as  an  opus  opuratum.  2d. 
They  affirm  that  they  convey  no  grace  to  the  unworthy  recip- 
ient. 3d.  That  their  efficacy  is  not  of  the  mere  moral  power 
of  the  truth  they  symbolize.  4th.  That  they  do  really  confer 
grace  upon  the  worthy  recipient.  5th.  But  they  do  this  instru- 
m  en  tally,  because  the  supernatural  efficiency  is  not  due  to  them, 
nor  to  him  that  administers  them,  but  to  the  Holy  Spirit  who 
as  a  free  personal  agent  uses  them  sovereignly  as  his  instru- 
ments to  do  his  will  (virtus  Spiritus  Sancti  extrinsicus  accedens). 
6th.  That  as  seals  of  the  covenant  of  grace  they  convey  and 
confirm  grace  to  those  to  whom  it  belongs,  i.  e.,  that  is  to  those 
who  are  within  that  covenant,  and  in  the  case  of  adults,  only 
through  a  living  faith.  7th.  That  the  grace  conferred  by  the 
sacraments  often  is  conferred  upon  true  believers  before  and 
without  their  use. 

20.  By  what  evidence  is  tlie  truth  of  tlie  Reformed  Doctrine 
established  ? 

The  truth  of  the  Reformed  doctrine  is  established  on  the 
one  hand  by  the  evidence  disproving  the  truth  of  the  Romish 
doctrine,  set  forth  under  Ques.  16.  Its  truth  as  opposed  to  the 
meagre  Zwinglian  view,  on  the  other  hand,  is  established  as 
follows:  (1.)  That  the  sacraments  are  not  only  signs  of  the 
grace  of  Christ,  but  also  seals  of  the  gospel  covenant  offering 
us  that  grace  upon  the  condition  of  faith,  "  is  evident  from  the 
fact  that  Paul  says  that  circumcision  is  the  seal  of  the  right- 
eousness of  faith. — Rom.  iv.  11.  And  that  the  apostle  regarded 
baptism  in  the  same  light  is  evident  from  Col.  ii.  11.  In  refer- 
ence to  the  Lord's  Supper,  the  Saviour  said,  'this  cup  is  the 
new  covenant  in  my  blood,'  i.  e.,  the  new  covenant  was  ratified 
I  >v  his  blood.  Of  that  blood  the  cup  is  the  appointed  memorial, 
and  it  is,  therefore,  both  the  memorial  and  the  confirmation  of 
the  covenant  itself.  ....  The  gospel  is  represented  under 
the  form  of  a  covenant.  The  sacraments  are  the  seals  of  that 
covenant.  God,  in  their  appointment,  binds  himself  to  the  ful- 
filment of  his  promises;  his  people,  by  receiving  them,  bind 


ROMISH    VIEW  AS    TO    THEIR    NECESSITY.  59? 

themselves  to  trust  and  serve  him.  This  idea  is  included  in 
the  representation  given  (Rom.  vi.  3,  4)  in  the  formula  of 
baptism,  and  in  all  those  passages  in  which  a  participation 
of  Christian  ordinances  is  said  to  include  a  profession  of  the 
gospel."  (2.)  As  seals  attached  to  the  covenant,  it  follows  that 
they  actually  convey  the  grace  signified,  as  a  legal  form  of 
investiture,  to  those  to  whom,  according  to  the  terms  of  the 
covenant,  it  belongs.  Thus  a  deed,  when  signed  and  sealed,  is 
said  to  convey  the  property  it  represents,  because  it  is  the  legal 
form  by  which  the  intention  of  the  original  possessor  is  publicly 
expressed,  and  his  act  ratified.  It  is  on  this  ground  that  in 
Scripture,  as  in  common  language,  the  names  and  attributes  of 
the  graces  sealed  are  ascribed  to  the  sacraments  by  which  they 
are  sealed  and  conveyed  to  their  rightful  possessors. — "Conf. 
Faith,"  Chap,  xxvii.,  section  2.  They  are  said  to  wash  away 
sin,  to  unite  to  Christ,  to  save,  etc. — Acts  ii.  38;  xxii.  16;  Rom. 
vi.  2,  6;  1  Cor.  x.  16;  xii.  13;  Gal.  iii.  27;  Titus  iii.  5.  "Way 
of  Life." 


The  Necessity  op  the  Sacraments. 

21.  What  doctrine  do  the  Romanists  maintain  as  to  tlie  necessity 
of  the  Sacraments  ? 

The  Romanists  distinguish,  1st,  between  a  condition  abso- 
lutely necessary  to  attain  an  end,  and  one  which  is  only  highly- 
convenient  and  helpful  in  order  to  it.  And,  2d,  between  the 
necessity  which  attaches  to  essential  means,  and  that  obli- 
gation which  arises  from  the  positive  command  of  God.  Ac- 
cordingly, they  hold  that  the  several  sacraments  are  necessary 
in  different  respects. 

Baptism  they  hold  to  be  absolutely  necessary,  either  its  actual 
reception,  or  the  honest  purpose  to  receive  it,  alike  for  infants 
and  adults,  as  the  sole  means  of  attaining  salvation. 

Penance  they  hold  to  be  absolutely  necessary  in  the  same 
sense,  but  only  for  those  who  have  committed  mortal  sin  subse- 
quently to  their  baptism. 

Orders  they  hold  to  be  absolutely  necessary  in  the  same 
sense,  yet  not  for  every  individual,  as  a  means  of  personal  sal- 
vation, but  in  respect  to  the  whole  church  as  a  community. 

Confirmation,  the  Eucharist,  and  Extreme  Unction  are  neces- 
sary only  in  the  sense  of  having  been  commanded,  and  of  being 
eminently  helpful. 

Marriage  they  hold  to  be  necessary  only  in  this  second  sense, 
and  only  for  those  who  enter  into  the  conjugal  relation. — "Cat 
Rom.,"  Part  II.,  Chap,  i.,  Q.  13. 


598  SACRAMENTS. 

Puseyites,  and  high  churchmen  generally,  hold  the  dogma 
of  baptismal  regeneration,  and  of  course  the  consequence  that 
baptism  is  absolutely  necessary  as  the  sole  means  of  salvation. 

22.  What  is  the  Protestant  doctrine  as  to  the  necessity  of  tJie 
sacraments  ? 

1st.  That  the  sacraments  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper 
were  instituted  by  Christ,  and  that  their  perpetual  observance 
is  obligatory  upon  the  church  upon  the  ground  of  the  divine 
precept.  This  is  evident  (1)  from  the  record  of  their  institution. 
Matt,  xxviii.  19 ;  1  Cor.  xi.  25,  26 ;  (2)  from  the  example  of  the 
apostles.— Acts  ii.  41;  viii.  37;  1  Cor.  xi.  23-28;  x.  16-21. 

2d.  That  nevertheless  the  grace  offered  in  the  gospel  cove- 
nant does  not  reside  in  these  sacraments  physically,  nor  is  it 
tied  to  them  inseparably,  so  that,  although  obligatory  as  duties, 
and  helpful  as  means  to  those  who  are  prepared  to  receive  them, 
they  are  in  no  sense  the  essential  means,  without  which  salva- 
tion can  not  be  attained.  This  is  proved  by  the  arguments 
presented  above,  under  Q.  16. 

The  Validity  of  the  Sacraments. 

This  includes  whatever  is  essential  to  the  genuineness  of  a 
sacrament,  in  order  that  it  may  avail  to  the  end  of  its  institution. 

23.  What  are  the  various  opinions  on  this  subject? 

All  church  parties  agree  that  there  must  be — 1st.  The  right 
"matter,"  the  proper  elements,  and  actions.  2d.  The  right 
"form,"  the  prescribed  words  which  attend  its  administration, 
and  added  to  the  "form"  constitute  the  sacrament.  3d.  The 
right  "intention,"  the  serious  design  of  doing  what  Christ  com- 
manded in  the  institution  of  the  rite. 

Different  churches  differ  as  to  what  are  the  proper  "matter," 
"  form,"  and  "  intention."  It  appears  certain  that  no  one  not 
sincerely  believing  in  the  supreme  deity  of  Christ  and  in  his 
office  as  Kedeemer,  and  in  the  personality  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
can  possibly  have  the  right  "intention."  Hence  the  General 
Assembly,  1814  ("  Moore's  Digest.,"  p.  660),  decided,  "  It  is  the 
deliberate  and  unanimous  opinion  of  the  Assembly,  that  those 
who  renounce  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Trinity,  and 
deny  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  same  in  substance,  equal  in  power 
and  glory  with  the  Father,  can  not  be  recognized  as  ministers 
of  the  gospel,  and  that  their  ministrations  (baptism,  etc.)  are 
wholly  invalid."  All  churches  agree  that  "the  efficacy  of  a 
sacrament  does  not  depend  upon  the  piety  of  him  that  doth 


THE    CONDITIONS    OF    THEIR    VALIDITY.  599 

administer  it."— "Conf.  Faith,"  Ch.  xxvii.,  §  3,  "Can.  Cone. 
Trident,"  Sess.  7,  can.  11.  And  the  "  Gallic  Conf.,"  Art.  28, 
states  the  common  opinion  and  practice  of  all  the  Protestant 
churches  with  respect  to  Romish  baptism.  "  Because,  never- 
theless, that  in  the  papacy  some  scant  vestiges  of  the  true 
church  remain,  and  especially  the  substance  of  baptism,  the 
efficacy  of  which  does  not  depend  on  him  that  administers  it, 
we  acknowledge  those  baptized  by  them,  not  to  need  to  be  re- 
baptized,  although  on  account  of  the  corruptions  adhering,  no 
one  cau  offer  his  infants  to  be  baptized  by  them,  without  suf- 
fering pollution  himself." 

In  respect  to  the  qualifications  of  the  person  administrating 
the  Papists  maintain  that  it  is  essential  to  the  validity  of  a 
sacrament  that  it  should  be  administered  by  a  canonically  or- 
dained minister.  For  orders  and  confirmation  a  bishop,  for  the 
rest  a  priest.  But  on  account  of  the  absolute  necessity  (as  they 
hold)  of  baptism  for  salvation,  they  admit  "all,  even  from  among 
the  laity,  whether  men  or  women,  whatever  sect  they  profess 
(to  baptize).  For  this  is  permitted,  if  necessity  compels,  even 
to  Jews,  infidels  or  heretics,  provided,  however,  they  intend  to 
perform  what  the  Catholic  Church  performs  in  that  act  of  her 
ministry." — "  Cat.  of  Cone.  Trident,"  and  "  Cone.  Trident,"  Sess. 
7,  "  On  Bapt.,"  can.  4. 

Protestants  regard  the  sacraments  both  as  a  preaching  of  the 
Word,  and  as  authoritative  seals,  and  badges  of  church  mem- 
bership. Their  administration  consequently  must  be  confined 
to  those  church  officers  who  possess  by  divine  commission  the 
office  of  teaching  and  ruling,  "  neither  of  which  (sacraments) 
may  be  dispensed  by  any,  but  by  a  minister  of  the  Word,  law- 
fully ordained." — "Conf.  Faith,"  Ch.  xxvii.,  §  4.  Not  regarding 
baptism  as  essential  to  salvation,  Protestants  generally  make 
no  exception  in  favor  of  lay-baptism. — "Directory  for  Worship," 
Ch.  vii.,  §  1,  Calvin's  "  Instit.,"  Bk.  IV.,  Ch.  xv.,  §  20. 

The  Authoritative  Statements  of  various  Churches. 

Romish  Doctrine.— "Gat.  Gone.  Trident,"  Pt.  2,  ch.  i.,  Ques.  8.— "A 
sacrament  is  a  thing  lying  open  to  the  senses,  which  from  the  institution 
of  God,  has  the  power  both  of  signifying  and  of  effecting  holiness  and 
righteousness. " 

"Gone.  Trident,"  Sess.  7,  can.  1. — "If  any  one  saith  that  the  sacra- 
ments of  the  New  Law,  were  not  all  instituted  by  Jesus  Christ,  our  Lord, 
or  that  they  are  more  or  less  than  seven,  to  wit,  Baptism,  Confirmation, 
the  Eucharist,  Penance,  Extreme  Unction,  Order,  and  Matrimony;  or 
even  that  any  one  of  these  seven  is  not  truly  and  properly  a  sacrament; 
let  him  be  anathema." 

Can.  4. — "If  any  one  saith  that  the  sacraments  of  the  New  Law  are 
not  necessary  unto  salvation,  but  superfluous;  and  that,  without  them, 


600  SACRAMEMb. 

or  without  the  desire  thereof,  men  obtain  of  God,  through  faith  alone, 
the  grace  of  justification  (though  all  the  sacraments  are  not  necessary 
for  every  individual);  let  him  be  anathema." 

Can.  6. — "If  any  one  saith  that  the  sacraments  of  the  New  Law  do 
not  contain  the  grace  which  they  signify;  or  that  they  do  not  confer  that 
grace  on  those  who  do  not  place  an  obstacle  thereunto;  as  though  they 
were  merely  outward  signs  of  grace  or  justice  received  through  faith, 
and  certain  marks  of  the  Christian  profession,  whereby  believers  are  dis- 
tinguished amongst  men  from  unbelievers;  let  him  be  anathema." 

Can.  8. — "If  any  one  saith  that  by  the  sacraments  of  the  New  Law 
grace  is  not  conferred  ex  opere  operato,  but  that  faith  alone  in  the  divine 
promise  suffices  for  the  obtaining  of  grace;  let  him  be  anathema." 

Can.  9. — "If  any  one  says  that  in  the  three  sacraments,  of  Baptism, 
Confirmation,  and  Orders,  there  is  not  imprinted  in  the  soul  a  character, 
that  is  a  certain  spiritual  and  indelible  sign,  on  account  of  which  they 
can  not  be  repeated;  let  him  be  anathema." 

Can.  11. — "If  any  one  saith  that  in  ministers,  when  they  effect  and 
confer  the  sacraments,  there  is  not  required  the  intention,  at  least,  of 
doing  what  the  Church  does;  let  him  be  anathema." 

"Cat.  Cone.  Trident,"  Pt.  2,  ch.  i.,  Ques.  24,  25.— "The  other  effect 
of  Baptism,  Confirmation,  and  Orders  is  the  character  which  they  im- 
press on  the  soul.  This  character  is,  as  it  were,  a  certain  distinctive 
mark  impressed  on  the  soul,  which  inhering,  as  it  does  perpetually,  can 
never  be  blotted  out  ...  it  has  a  twofold  effect:  it  both  renders  us 
fit  to  undertake  and  perform  something  sacred;  and  it  serves  to  distin- 
guish us  one  from  another  by  some  mark." 

BeUai-min  "De  Sac,"  2,  1. — "That  which  actively,  proximately,  and 
instrumentally  effects  the  grace  of  justification  is  that  sole  external  action 
which  is  called  a  sacrament,  and  this  is  called  an  opus  operatum,  being 
received  passively  (operatum),  so  that  it  is  the  same  for  a  sacrament  to 
confer  grace  ex  opere  operato,  that  it  is  to  confer  grace  by  virtue  of  the 
sacramental  action  itself,  instituted  by  God  for  this  end,  and  not  from 
the  merit  either  of  the  agent  or  of  the  receiver.  .  .  .  The  will  of 
God,  which  uses  the  sacrament,  concurs  indeed  actively,  but  is  the 
principal  cause.  The  sufferings  of  Christ  concur,  but  is  the  meritori- 
ous cause,  not  however  the  efficient  (cause),  since  it  is  not  in  the  act, 
but  has  passed  away,  although  it  remains  objectively  in  the  mind  of 
God.  The  power  and  will  of  the  minister  necessarily  concur,  but  they 
are  remote  causes,  for  they  are  required  to  effect  the  sacramental  action 
itself,  which  afterwards  acts  immediately.  .  .  .  Will,  faith,  and  re- 
pentance in  the  adult  recipient  are  necessarily  required  as  dispositions  on 
the  part  of  the  subject,  not  as  active  causes,  for  not  even  faith  and  re- 
pentance can  either  effect  sacramental  grace,  or  give  efficacy  to  the  sac- 
rament, but  only  remove  obstacles,  which  would  hinder  the  sacraments 
from  exercising  their  own  efficacy,  hence  in  the  case  of  children,  where 
disposition  is  not  required,  justification  is  effected  without  these  things. 
If  in  order  to  burn  wood,  the  wood  is  first  dried,  the  fire  struck  out  from 
the  flint,  and  then  applied  to  the  wood,  and  then  combustion  ensues,  no 
one  would  say  that  the  immediate  cause  of  the  combustion  was  either 
the  dryness,  or  the  striking  of  fire  from  the  flint,  or  its  application  to 
the  wood,  but  that  the  primary  cause  is  the  fire  alone,  and  the  instru- 
mental cause  is  the  heating  alone." 

The  Lutheran  Doctrine.  "Aug.  Con/."  p.  13.  (Hase). — "Sacra- 
ments have  been  instituted  not  only  that  they  might  be  marks  of  profes- 
sion among  men,  but  more  that  they  may  be  signs  and  testimonies  of 


AUTHORITATIVE    STATEMENTS.  601 

the  will  of  God  toward  us  set  forth  to  excite  and  confirm  faith  in  those 
who  use  them. " 

"Apol.  Augs.  Con/.,"  p.  267. — "And  because  that  in  a  sacrament  there 
are  two  things,  the  sign  and  the  word;  the  word  is  the  New  Testament 
promise  of  the  remission  of  sin  .  .  .  and  the  ceremony  is  as  it  were 
a  picture  of  the  word  or  a  seal  showing  the  promise.  Therefore  as  the 
promise  is  ineffective  if  it  be  not  accepted  by  faith,  so  the  ceremony  is 
ineffective  unless  faith  accedes.  And  as  the  word  is  given  to  excite  this 
faith ;  so  the  sacrament  is  instituted,  that  this  representation  meeting  the 
eyes  may  move  the  heart  to  believe." 

lb.,  p.  203. —  "We  condemn  the  whole  class  of  scholastic  doctors,  who 
teach  that  to  one  presenting  no  obstacle  the  sacraments  confer  grace  ex 
opere  operato,  without  any  good  movement  of  the  partaker.  But  sacra- 
ments are  signs  of  promises,  therefore  in  the  use  of  them  faith  should 
be  present.  .  .  We  here  speak  of  the  special  faith  which  trusts  a 
present  promise,  which  not  only  believes  in  general  that  God  is,  but 
believes  that  remission  of  sins  is  offered." 

Quenstedt  {Wittenburg  fl688),  Vol.  I.,  p.  169.— "The  word  of  God 
has,  from  the  will  and  ordination  of  God  himself,  even  before  and  beyond 
all  legitimate  use,  an  intrinsic  power  divine  and  common  to  all  men,  and 
sufficient  for  producing  immediately  and  properly  spiritual  and  divine 
effects,  both  gracious  and  punitive." 

"Aug.  Con/.,"  Art.  9. — "They  condemn  the  Anabaptists  who  disap- 
prove of  the  baptism  of  children,  and  who  affirm  that  children  can  be 
saved  without  baptism." 

"Apol.  Aug.  Con/.,"  p.  156. — "The  ninth  article  is  approved  in  which 
we  confess,  that  Baptism  is  necessary  for  salvation,  and  that  children  are 
to  be  baptized,  and  that  the  baptism  of  children  is  not  void,  but  neces- 
sary and  efficacious  to  salvation." 

"Art.  Smalbald,"  pars.  3,  ch.  8. — "And  in  respect  to  these  things 
which  concern  the  spoken  and  outward  word,  it  is  steadfastly  to  be 
maintained,  that  God  grants  to  no  one  his  Spirit  or  grace,  unless  through 
the  word  and  with  the  word  outward  and  preceding.  .  .  Wherefore 
in  this  we  must  constantly  persevere,  because  God  does  not  wish  to  act 
otherwise  with  us  than  through  the  spoken  word  and  sacraments,  and 
because  whatever  is  boasted  of,  as  the  Spirit,  without  the  word  and  sac- 
raments, is  the  devil  himself." 

The  Beformed  Doctrine.  "Cutecli.  Ge7iev.,"  p.  519. — "A  sacrament 
is  an  outward  attestation  of  the  divine  benevolence  towards  us,  which  by 
a  visible  sign  figures  spiritual  graces,  for  sealing  the  promises  of  God  to 
our  hearts,  whereby  their  virtue  may  be  the  better  confirmed.  Do  you 
think  that  the  power  and  efficacy  of  the  sacrament  are  embraced  not  in 
the  outward  element,  but  flow  only  from  the  Spirit  of  God  ?  I  think  so, 
truly,  as  it  would  be  pleasing  to  the  Master  to  exercise  his  own  force 
through  his  own  instrumentalities,  to  whatever  design  he  destined  them. " 

"Cat.  Heidelb."  Fr.  66. — "Sacraments  are  visible,  sacred  signs  and 
seals  appointed  by  God  that  in  their  use  we  may  have  the  promise  of  the 
gospel  made  clearer  and  sealed;  to  wit,  that  God  for  the  sake  of  the  one 
oblation  of  Christ  bestows  on  us  forgiveness  of  sins  and  eternal  life." 

"Thirty-nine  Articles,"  Art.  25. — "  Sacraments  ordained  of  Christ  be 
not  only  badges  or  tokens  of  Christian  men's  profession,  but  rather  they 
be  certain  sure  witnesses  and  effectual  signs  of  grace,  and  God's  good- 
will towards  us,  by  the  which  he  doth  work  invisibly  in  us,  and  doth  not 
only  quicken,  but  also  strengthen  and  confirm  our  faith  in  him.  .  .  , 
And  in  such  only  as  worthily  receive  the  same  they  have  a  wholesome 


602  SACRAMENTS. 

effect  or  operation;  but  they  that  receive  them  unworthily,  purchase  to 
themselves  damnation,  as  St.  Paul  saith." 

"West.  Goaf.  Faith,"  ch.  27;  "L.  Gat,"  Ques.  161-168;  "S.  Cat.," 
Ques.  91-93.     See  above,  page  589. 

Zwtnglian  and  Kemonstbant  Doctrine.  Lhnborcli,  "CJirist.  Tlieo." 
5,  66,  31. — "It  remains  to  say  that  God,  through  the  sacraments,  exhib- 
its to  us  his  grace,  not  by  conferring  it  in  fact  through  them,  but  by 
representing  it  and  placing  it  before  our  eyes  through  them  as  clear  and 
evident  signs,  .  .  And  this  efficacy  is  no  other  than  objective,  -which 
requires  a  cognitive  faculty  rightly  disposed  that  it  may  be  able  to  appre- 
hend that  which  the  sign  offers  objectively  to  the  mind.  .  .  They 
operate  upon  us,  as  signs  representing  to  the  mind  the  thing  whose  sign 
they  are.     No  other  efficacy  ought  to  be  sought  for  in  them. " 


CHAPTER    XLII. 

BAPTISM :  ITS  NATURE  AND  DESIGN,  MODE,  SUBJECTS,  EITICACY 
AND  NECESSITY. 

The  Nature  and  Design  of  Baptism. 

1.  State  the/acts  with  regard  to  the  prevalence  of  washing  with 
water,  as  a  symbol  of  spiritual  'purification.,  among  the  Jews  and 
Gentile  nations  before  the  advent  of  Christ. 

No  other  religious  symbol  is  so  natural  and  obvious,  and 
none  has  been  so  universally  practiced.  Its  usage  is  distinctly 
traced  among  the  disciples  of  Zoroaster,  the  Brahmen,  the 
Egyptians,  Greeks,  and  Romans,  and  especially  the  Jews.  In 
the  original  tabernacle,  the  pattern  of  which  God  showed 
Moses  on  the  mount,  a  large  laver  stood  between  the  altar  on 
which  expiation  was  made  for  sin,  and  the  Holy  House.  At 
which  laver  the  priests  continually  washed  ere  they  entered 
the  presence  of  God.  This  symbolism  penetrated  all  their  re- 
ligious services  and  language  (Ps.  xxvi.  6;  Heb.  ix.  10),  and  at 
the  time  of  Christ  it  was  carried  into  all  the  details  of  secular 
life  (Mark  vii.  3,  4). 

The  religious  washing  of  the  body  with  water  lay,  there- 
fore, ready  to  the  use  of  John  the  Baptist,  and  the  disciples  of 
our  Lord. 

2.  Was  Johns  baptism  Christian  baptism ? 

The  "Council  of  Trent"  (Sess.  7,  "De  Baptismo,"  can.  1)  de- 
cided, "If  any  one  should  say  that  the  baptism  of  John  had  the 
same  effect  with  the  baptism  of  Christ;  let  him  be  anathema." 
For  controversial  reasons  Protestants,  especially  those  of  the 
school  of  Zwingle  and  Calvin,  took  the  opposite  side,  and  de- 
cided that  the  two  were  identical  (Calvin's  "  Instit.,"  Bk.  IV., 
Ch.  xv.,  §  7-18,  Turretin's  "  Instit.,"  L.  19,  Quae.  16). 

We  believe  Calvin,  etc.,  to  have  been  wrong,  for  the  follow- 
ing reason — 

1st.  John  belonged  to  the  Old  and  not  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment economy.     He  came  "  in  the  spirit  and  power  of  Elias.' 


604  BArnsM. 

Luke  i.  17,  in  the  garb,  with  the  manners,  and  teaching  the 
doctrine  of  the  ancient  prophets  (Matt.  xi.  13,  14;  Luke  i.  17). 

2d.  His  was  the  "  baptism  of  repentance,"  binding  its  sub- 
jects to  repentance,  but  not  to  the  faith  and  obedience  of  Christ. 

3d.  The  Jewish  Church  yet  remained  in  its  old  form.  The 
Christian  Church,  as  such,  did  not  exist.  John  preached  that 
"  the  kingdom  of  heaven  was  at  hand,"  but  he  did  not  by  bap- 
tism gather  and  seal  the  subjects  of  that  kingdom  into  a  sepa- 
rate visible  society.  While  he  lived  his  personal  disciples  were 
never  merged  with  those  of  Christ. 

4th.  It  was  not  administered  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity. 

5th.  Those  baptized  by  John  were  rebaptized  by  Paul  (Acts 
xviii.  24-xix.  7). 

3.  Were  tlie  baptisms  practiced  by  tlie  disciples  of  Christ  previ- 
ous to  his  crucifixion  identical  with  that  practiced  by  tlie  apostles 
after  his  ascension? — See  John  iii.  22  and  iv.  1  and  2. 

Up  to  the  time  of  his  death  Christ,  like  John,  conformed  to 
the  usages  and  taught  the  doctrines  of  the  Jewish  dispensation. 
His  crucifixion  and  resurrection  mark  the  actual  transition  of 
the  new  out  of  the  old  dispensation.  The  nature  of  his  king- 
dom and  his  own  divinity,  and  hence  the  doctrine  of  the  Trin- 
ity, was  not  clearly  discerned,  and  the  Christian  Church  as  a 
distinct  communion  was  not  yet  organized.  He  preached  like 
John,  "  Repent  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand,"  Matt. 
iv.  17,  and  he  commissioned  his  disciples  to  say  "the  kingdom 
of  God  has  come  nigh  unto  you." — Luke  x.  9. 

We,  therefore,  believe  that  this  baptism  practiced  by  his 
disciples  before  his  crucifixion  was,  like  that  of  John,  simply  a 
preparatory  purifying  rite  binding  to  repentance. 

4.  Where  is  the  record  of  the  real  institution  of  Cliristian  baptism 
contained  ? 

Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20. — "  Go  ye  therefore,  and  disciple  {naBrj- 
r£v6ars)  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  "the  Holy  Ghost;  teaching  them  to  ob- 
serve all  things,  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you;  and  lo,  1 
am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world." 

5.  Prove  that  its  observance  is  of  perpetual  obligation. 

This  has  been  denied  by  Socinians  on  rationalistic  grounds, 
and  by  Quakers  (Barclay,  "  Apol.  Prop.,"  12,  comm.  §  6),  on  the 
ground  of  a  false  spiritualism,  and  by  some  parties  of  Anti- 
Baptists,  who  hold  baptism  to  have  been  exclusively  designed 
for  the  initiation  of  aliens  to  the  church,  and  therefore  not 


ITS   ''MATTER"  AND    "FORM."  605 

to  be  applied  to  those  born  within  the  church,  in  established 
Christian  communities. 

That  it  was  designed  to  be  observed  everywhere  and  always 
is  plain — 1st.  From  the  command  given  in  the  words  of  institu- 
tion. (1.)  "All  nations,"  and  (2)  "alway,  even  unto  the  end 
of  the  world."  2d.  The  commands  and  practice  of  the  apostles. 
Acts  ii.  38 ;  x.  47 ;  xvi.  33,  etc.  3d.  The  reason  of  and  neces- 
sity for  the  ordinance  which  determined  its  existence  at  the 
first,  remains  and  is  universal.  4th.  The  uniform  practice  of 
the  entire  church  in  all  its  branches  from  the  beginning. 

6.  How  is  baptism  defined  in  our  standards  ? 

"Con.  of  Faith,"  Chap,  xxviii.;  "L.  Cat.,"  Q.  165;  "S.  Cat," 

Q- 94- 

The  essential  points  of  this  definition  are — 1st.  It  is  a  wash- 
ing with  water.  2d.  A  washing  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.  3d.  It  is  done  with  the  design  to  "  sig- 
nify and  seal  our  ingrafting  into  Christ,  and  partaking  of  the 
benefits  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  our  engagement  to  be 
the  Lord's." 

7.  What  is  essential  to  the  "matter"  of  baptism  ? 

As  to  its  "matter,"  baptism  is  essentially  a  washing  with 
water.  No  particular  mode  of  washing  is  essential — 1st.  Be- 
cause no  such  mode  is  specified  in  the  command. — See  below, 
Questions  12-21.  2d.  Because  no  such  mode  of  administration 
is  essential  to  the  proper  symbolism  of  the  ordinance. — See  be- 
low, Question  11.  On  the  other  hand,  water  is  necessary — 1st. 
Because  it  is  commanded.  2d.  Because  it  is  essential  to  the 
symbolism  of  the  rite.  It  is  the  natural  symbol  of  moral  puri- 
fication, Eph.  v.  25,  26;  and  it  was  established  as  such  in  the 
ritual  of  Moses. 

8.  What  is  necessary  as  to  the  form  of  xuords  in  which  baptism 
is  administered  ? 

It  is  essential  to  the  validity  of  the  ordinance  that  it  should 
be  administered  "in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  This  is  certain  —  1st.  Because  it  is 
included  in  the  command.  —  Matt,  xxviii.  19.  2d.  From  the 
significancy  of  the  rite.  Besides  being  a  symbol  of  purifica- 
tion, it  is  essentially,  as  a  rite  of  initiation  into  the  Christian 
church,  a  covenanting  ordinance  whereby  the  recipient  recog- 
nizes and  pledges  his  allegiance  to  God  in  that  character  and 
in  those  relations  in  which  he  has  revealed  himself  to  us  in  the 
Scriptures.     The  formula  of  baptism,  therefore,  is  a  summary 


606  BAPTISM. 

statement  of  the  whole  Scripture  doctrine  of  the  Triune  Jeho- 
vah as  he  has  chosen  to  reveal  himself  to  us,  and  in  all  those 
relations  which  the  several  Persons  of  the  Trinity  graciously 
sustain  in  the  scheme  of  redemption  to  the  believer.  Hence 
the  baptism  of  all  those  sects  which  reject  the  scriptural  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity  is  invalid. 

The  frequent  phrases,  to  be  baptized  in  "the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ,"  or  "in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,"  or  "in  the  name 
of  the  Lord"  (Acts  ii.  38;  x.  48;  xix.  5),  do  not  at  all  present 
the  form  of  words  which  the  apostles  used  in  administering 
this  sacrament,  but  are  simply  used  to  designate  Christian  bap- 
tism in  distinction  from  that  of  John,  or  to  indicate  the  uni- 
form effect  of  that  spiritual  grace  which  is  symbolized  in  bap- 
tism, viz.,  union  with  Christ. — Gal.  iii.  27. 

9.  What  is  the  meaning  of  the  formula  "to  baptize  in  the  name 
(els  to  ovojxa)  of  any  one"  ? 

To  be  baptized  "in  the  name  of  Paul"  (eis  rd  ovo/ux),  1  Cor. 
i.  13,  or  "unto  Moses"  («^s  rdv  Moov6fjv),  1  Cor.  x.  2,  is,  on  the 
part  of  the  baptized,  to  be  made  the  believing  and  obedient 
disciples  of  Paul  and  Moses,  and  the  objects  of  their  care,  and 
the  participants  in  whatever  blessings  they  have  to  bestow. 
To  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity  (Matt,  xxviii.  19),  or 
"in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus"  (Acts  xix.  5),  or  "into  Jesus 
Christ,"  (Rom.  vi.  3),  is  by  baptism,  or  rather  by  the  grace  of 
which  ritual  baptism  is  the  sign,  to  be  united  to  Christ,  or  to 
the  Trinity  through  Christ,  as  his  disciples,  believers  in  his  doc- 
trine, heirs  of  his  promises,  and  participants  in  his  spiritual  life. 

10.  What  is  the  design  of  baptism  ? 

Its  design  is — 

1st.  Primarily,  to  signify,  seal,  and  convey  to  those  to  whom 
they  belong  the  benefits  of  the  covenant  of  grace.  Thus — 
(1.)  It  symbolizes  "the  washing  of  regeneration,"  "the  renew- 
ing of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  which  unites  the  believer  to  Christ, 
and  so  makes  him  a  participant  in  Christ's  life  and  all  other 
benefits.  —  1  Cor.  xii.  13;  Gal.  iii.  27;  Titus  iii.  5.  (2.)  Christ 
herein  visibly  seals  his  promises  to  those  who  receive  it  with 
faith,  and  invests  them  with  the  grace  promised. 

2d.  Its  design  was,  secondarily,  as  springing  from  the  former, 
(1)  to  be  a  visible  sign  of  our  covenant  to  be  the  Lord's,  i.  e.,  to 
accept  his  salvation,  and  to  consecrate  ourselves  to  his  service. 
(2.)  And,  hence,  to  be  a  badge  of  our  public  profession,  our 
separation  from  the  world,  and  our  initiation  into  the  visible 
church.     As  a  badge  it  marks  us  as  belonging  to  the  Lord, 


ITS   EMBLEMATIC   IMPORT.  607 

and  consequently  (a)  distinguishes  us  from  the  world,  (b)  sym- 
bolizes our  union  with  our  fellow-Christians. — 1  Cor.  xii.  13. 

11.  What  is  the  emblematic  import  of  baptism? 

In  every  sacrament  there  is  a  visible  sign  representing  an 
invisible  grace.  The  sign  represents  the  grace  in  virtue  of 
Christ's  authoritatively  appointing  it  thereto,  but  the  selection 
by  Christ  of  the  particular  sign  is  founded  on  its  fitness  as  a 
natural  emblem  of  the  grace  which  he  appoints  it  to  represent. 
Thus  in  the  Lord's  supper  the  bread  broken  by  the  officiating 
minister,  and  the  wine  poured  out,  are  natural  emblems  of  the 
body  of  Christ  broken,  and  his  blood  shed  as  a  sacrifice  for  our 
6ins.  And  in  like  manner  in  the  sacrament  of  baptism  the  ap- 
plication of  water  to  the  person  of  the  recipient  is  a  natural 
emblem  of  the  "  washing  ol  regeneration." — Titus  hi.  5.  Hence 
we  are  said  to  be  "  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,"  John  hi.  5, 
i.  e.,  regenerated  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  of  which  new  birth  baptism 
with  water  is  the  emblem ;  and  to  be  baptized  "  by  one  Spirit 
into  one  body,"  i.  e.,  the  spiritual  body  of  Christ;  and  to  be 
"  baptized  into  Christ,"  so  as  "  to  have  put  on  Christ,"  Gal.  hi. 
27;  and  to  be  "baptized  into  his  death,"  and  to  be  "buried 
with  him  in  baptism  ...  so  that  we  should  walk  with 
him  in  newness  of  life,"  Rom.  vi.  3,  4,  because  the  sacrament 
of  baptism  is  the  emblem  of  that  spiritual  regeneration  which 
unites  us  both  federally  and  spiritually  to  Christ,  so  that  we 
have  part  with  him  both  in  his  life  and  in  his  death,  and  as  he 
died  unto  sin  as  a  sacrifice,  so  we  die  unto  sin  in  its  ceasing  to 
be  the  controlling  principle  of  our  natures;  and  as  he  rose  again 
in  the  resumption  of  his  natural  life,  we  rise  to  the  possession 
and  exercise  of  a  new  spiritual  life. 

Baptist  interpreters,  on  the  other  hand,  insist  that  the  Bible 
teaches  that  the  outward  sign  in  this  sacrament,  being  the  im- 
mersion of  the  whole  body  in  water,  is  an  emblem  both  of  puri- 
fication and  of  our  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  with  Christ. 
Dr.  Carson  says,  p.  381,  "  The  immersion  of  the  whole  body  is 
essential  to  baptism,  not  because  nothing  but  immersion  can 
be  an  emblem  of  purification,  but  because  immersion  is  the 
thing  commanded,  and  because  that,  without  immersion,  there 
is  noj^mblem  of  death,  burial,  and  resurrection,  which  are  in  the 
emrjem  equally  with  purification."  He  founds  his  assumption 
that  the  outward  sign  in  the  sacrament  of  baptism  was  de- 
signed to  be  an  emblem  of  the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection 
of  the  believer  in  union  with  Christ,  upon  Rom.  vi.  3,  4,  and 
Col.  ii.  12. 

We  object  to  this  interpretation — 1st.  In  neither  of  these 
passages  does  Paul  say  that  our  baptism  in  water  is  an  emblem 


608  BAPTISM. 

of  our  burial  with  Christ.  He  is  evidently  speaking  of  that 
spiritual  baptism  of  which  water  baptism  is  the  emblem ;  by 
which  spiritual  baptism  we  are  caused  to  die  unto  sin,  and  live 
unto  holiness,  in  which  death  and  new  life  we  are  conformed 
unto  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ.  We  are  said  to  be 
"  baptized  into  Christ,"  which  is  the  work  of  the  Spirit,  not 
"  into  the  name  of  Christ,"  which  is  the  phrase  always  used 
when  speaking  of  ritual  baptism. — Matt,  xxviii.  19 ;  Acts  ii.  38 ; 
xix.  5.  2d.  To  be  "baptized  into  his  death"  is  a  phrase  per- 
fectly analogous  to  baptism  "into  repentance,"  Matt.  iii.  11, 
and  "into  remission  of  sins,"  Mark  i.  4,  and  "into  one  body," 
1  Cor.  xii.  13,  i.  e.,  in  order  that,  or  to  the  effect  that,  we  par- 
ticipate in  the  benefits  of  his  death. 

3d.  The  Baptist  interpretation  involves  an  utter  confusion 
in  reference  to  the  emblem.  Do  they  mean  that  the  outward 
sign  of  immersion  is  an  emblem  of  the  death,  burial,  and  re- 
surrection of  Christ,  or  of  the  spiritual  death,  burial,  and  resur- 
rection of  the  believer?  But  the  point  of  comparison  in  the 
passages  themselves  is  plainly  "not  between  our  baptism  and 
the  burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  but  between  our  death  to 
sin  and  rising  to  holiness,  and  the  death  and  resurrection  of  the 
Redeemer." 

4th.  Baptists  agree  with  us  that  baptism  with  water  is  an 
emblem  of  spiritual  purification,  i.  e.,  regeneration,  but  insist 
that  it  is  also  an  emblem  (in  the  mode  of  immersion)  of  the 
death  of  the  believer  to  sin  and  his  new  life  of  holiness. — Dr. 
Carson,  p.  143.  But  what  is  the  distinction  between  regenera- 
tion and  a  death  unto  sin,  and  life  unto  holiness. 

5th.  Baptists  agree  with  us  that  water  baptism  is  an  emblem 
of  purification.  But  surely  it  is  impossible  that  the  same  action 
should  at  the  same  time  be  an  emblem  of  a  washing,  and  of  a 
burial  and  a  resurrection.  One  idea  may  be  associated  with 
the  other  in  consequence  of  their  spiritual  relations,  but  it  is 
impossible  that  the  same  visible  sign  should  be  emblematical 
of  both. 

6th.  Our  union  with  Christ  through  the  Spirit,  and  the  spir- 
itual consequences  thereof,  are  illustrated  in  Scripture  by  many 
various  figures,  e.  g.,  the  substitution  of  a  heart  of  flesh  for  a 
heart  of  stone,  Ezek.  xxxvi.  26 ;  the  building  of  a  hou|wlr'Eph. 
ii.  22;  the  ingrafting  of  a  limb  into  a  vine,  John  xv.  5;  the 
putting  off  of  filthy  garments,  and  the  putting  6n  of  clean, 
Eph.  iv.  22-24;  as  a  spiritual  death,  burial,  and  resurrection, 
and  as  a  being  planted  in  the  likeness  of  his  death,  Rom. 
vi.  3-5 ;  as  the  application  of  a  cleansing  element  to  the  body, 
Ezek.  xxxvi.  25.  Now  baptism  with  water  represents  all  these, 
because  it  is  an  emblem  of  spiritual  regeneration,  of  which  all  of 


ITS  MODE.  609 

these  are  analogical  illustrations.  Hence  we  are  said  to  be  "  bap- 
tized into  one  body,"  1  Cor.  xii.  13,  and  by  baptism  to  "  have 
put  on  Christ,"  Gal.  iii.  27.  Yet  it  would  be  absurd  to  regard 
water  baptism  as  a  literal  emblem  of  all  these,  and  our  Baptist 
brethren  have  no  scriptural  warrant  for  assuming  that  the  out- 
ward sign  in  this  sacrament  is  an  emblem  of  the  one  analogy 
more  than  of  the  other. — See  Dr.  Armstrong's  "Doctrine  of 
Baptisms,"  Part  II.,  Chap.  ii. 

The  Mode  of  Baptism. 

12.  What  are  Hie  ivords  which,  in  the  original  language  of 
Scripture,  are  used  to  convey  the  command  to  baptize  ? 

The  primary  word  pdicroo  occurs  four  times  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament (Luke  xvi.  24;  John  xiii.  26;  Rev.  xix.  13),  but  never 
in  connection  with  the  subject  of  Christian  baptism.  Its  clas- 
sical meaning  was,  1st,  to  dip;  2d,  to  dye;  3d,  to  wash  by 
dipping  or  pouring. 

The  word  fianrfcoo,  in  form,  though  not  in  usage,  the  fre- 
quentative of  (idnroa,  occurs  seventy-six  times  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, and  is  the  word  used  by  the  Holy  Ghost  to  convey  the 
command  to  baptize.  Its  classical  meaning  was,  (1)  dip,  sub- 
merge, sink;  (2)  to  wet  thoroughly;  (3)  to  pour  upon,  to  drench ; 
(4)  to  overwhelm.  Besides  these,  we  have  the  nouns  of  the 
same  root  and  usage,  jidTtn6na  occurring  twenty-two  times, 
translated  baptism,  and  (5aitTi6i-i6%  occurring  four  times,  trans- 
lated baptism,  Heb.  vi.  2,  and  washing,  Mark.  vii.  4,  8 ;  Heb.  ix.  10. 
The  only  question  with  which  we  are  concerned,  however,  is 
as  to  the  scriptural  usage  of  these  words.  It  is  an  important 
and  universally  recognized  principle,  that  the  biblical  and  clas- 
sical usage  of  the  same  word  is  often  very  different.  This  effect 
is  to  be  traced  to  the  influence  of  three  general  causes. — See 
"Baptism,  its  Modes  and  Subjects,"  by  Dr.  Alex.  Carson;  "Mean- 
ing opd  Use  of  the  Word  Baptizein,"  by  Rev.  Dr.  Conant,  and 
"Classic,  Judaic,  Johannic,  and  Christian  Baptism"  by  Rev.  James 
W.  Dale,  D.D. 

1st.  The  principal  classics  of  the  language  were  composed 
in  the  Attic  dialect.  But  the  general  language  used  by  the 
Gree^i^peaking  world  at  the  Christian  era  was  the  "  common, 
or  Hellenic  dialect  of  the  later  Greek,"  resulting  from  the  fusion 
of  the  different  dialects  previously  existing. 

2d.  The  language  of  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  was 
again  greatly  modified  by  the  fact  that  their  vernacular  was  a 
form  of  the  Hebrew  language  (Syro-Chaldaic) ;  that  their  con- 
stant use  of  the  Septuagint  translation  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures 
had  largely  influenced  their  usage  of  the  Greek  language,  espe- 
39 


610  BAPTISM. 

cially  in  the  department  of  religious  thought  and  expression; 
and  that,  in  the  very  act  of  composing  the  New  Testament 
Scriptures,  they  were  engaged  in  the  statement  of  religious 
ideas,  and  in  the  inauguration  of  religious  institutions  which 
had  their  types  and  symbols  in  the  ancient  dispensation,  as 
revealed  in  the  sacred  language  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures. 

3d.  The  New  Testament  writings  are  a  revelation  of  new 
ideas  and  relations,  and  hence  the  words  and  phrases  through 
which  these  new  thoughts  are  conveyed  must  be  greatly  modi- 
fied in  respect  to  their  former  etymological  sense  and  heathen 
usage,  and  "for  the  full  depth  and  compass  of  meaning  belong- 
ing to  them  in  their  new  application  we  must  look  to  the  New 
Testament  itself,  comparing  one  passage  with  another,  and 
viewing  the  language  used  in  the  light  of  the  great  things 
which  it  brings  to  our  apprehension." 

As  examples  of  this  contrast  between  the  scriptural  and 
classical  usage  of  a  word,  observe,  ayyeXot,  angel;  xpEdfivrepos, 
presbyter  or  elder;  ixxXr/6/a,  church;  fiadiXsia  xov  Bsov,  or  roay 
ovpav&v,  kingdom  of  God,  or  of  heaven;  ita\iyytvE6ia,  regenera- 
tion; x<xpl$>  grace,  etc.,  etc. — Eairbairn's  "Herm.  Manual,"  Part 
I.,  section  2. 

13.  What  is  Hue  position  of  the  Baptist  churches  as  to  the  mean- 
ing of  the  Scriptural  word  fiaitri^oo,  and  by  what  arguments  do 
they  seek  to  prove  that  immersion  is  tlie  only  valid  mode  of  baptism? 

"That  it  always  signifies  to  dip,  never  expressing  any  thing 
but  mode." — "Carson  on  Baptism,"  p.  55.  He  confesses:  "I 
have  all  the  lexicographers  and  commentators  against  me." 
Baptists  insist,  therefore,  upon  always  translating  the  words 
panri^Go  and  pannd/ua  by  the  words  immerse  and  immersion. 

They  argue  that  immersion  is  the  only  valid  mode  of  bap- 
tism— 1st.  From  the  constant  meaning  of  the  word  fianxi^od. 
2d.  From  the  symbolical  import  of  the  rite,  as  emblematic  of 
burial  and  resurrection.  3d.  From  the  practice  of  the  apostles. 
4th.  From  history  of  the  early  church. 

14.  Wliat  is  the  position  occupied  upon  this  point  by  all  otlier 
Christians?  .t^ 

1st.  It  is  an  established  principle  of  scriptural  usage  that  the 
names  and  attributes  of  the  things  signified  by  sacramental 
signs  are  attributed  to  the  signs,  and  on  the  other  hand  that 
the  name  of  the  sign  is  used  to  designate  the  grace  signified. 
Thus,  Gen.  xvii.  11,  13,  the  name  of  covenant  is  given  to  cir- 
cumcision; Matt.  xxvi.  26-28,  Christ  called  the  bread  his  body, 
and  the  wine  his  blood;  Titus  iii.  5,  baptism  is  called  the  wash- 


WASHING    TO   EFFECT  PURIFICATION.  611 

ing  of  regeneration.  Thus  also  the  words  baptize  and  baptism 
are  often  used  to  designate  that  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  re- 
generation, which  the  sign,  or  water  baptism,  signifies. — Matt, 
iii.  11;  1  Cor.  xii.  13;  Gal.  iii.  27;  Deut.  xxx.  6.  It  follows  con- 
sequently that  these  words  are  often  used  in  a  spiritual  sense. 

2d.  These  words  when  relating  to  ritual  baptism,  or  the  sign 
representing  the  thing  signified,  imply  the  application  of  water 
in  the  name  of  the  Trinity,  as  an  emblem  of  purification  or 
spiritual  regeneration,  and  never,  in  their  scriptural  usage,  sig- 
nify any  thing  whatever  as  to  the  mode  in  which  the  water  ia 
applied. 

The  precise  question  in  debate  is  to  be  stated  thus.  Baptists 
insist  that  Christ's  command  to  baptize  is  a  command  to  "im- 
merse." All  other  Christians  hold  that  it  is  a  command  to 
"wash  with  water"  as  a  symbol  of  spiritual  purification. 

I  have  answered,  under  Question  11,  above,  the  second  Bap- 
tist argument,  as  stated  under  Question  13.  Their  first  and 
third  arguments,  as  there  stated,  I  will  proceed  to  answer  now. 

15.  How  may  it  be  proved  from  their  scriptural  usage  that  the 
words  /3a7tri%Qi>  and  ftditn6i.ia  do  not  signify  immersion,  but  wash- 
ing to  effect  purification,  loithout  any  reference  to  mode? 

1st.  The  word  occurs  four  times  in  the  Septuagint  transla- 
tion of  the  Old  Testament,  in  three  of  which  instances  it  refers 
to  baptism  with  water.  2  Kings  v.  14 — The  prophet  told  Naa- 
man  to  "wash  and  be  clean,"  and  "he  baptized  himself  in  Jor- 
dan, and  he  was  clean."  Eccle.  xxxiv.  25 — "  He  that  baptizeth 
himself  after  the  touching  of  a  dead  body."  This  purification 
according  to  the  law  was  accomplished  by  sprinlding  the  water 
of  separation. — Num.  xix.  9,  13,  20.  Judith  xii.  7,  Judith  "bap- 
tized herself  in  the  camp  at  a  fountain  of  water."  Bathing  was 
not  performed  among  those  nations  by  immersion;  and  the  cir- 
cumstances in  which  Judith  was  placed  increase  the  improb- 
ability in  her  case.  It  was  a  purification,  for  she  "  baptized 
herself,"  and  "  so  came  in  clean." 

2d.  The  question  agitated  between  some  of  John's  disciples 
and  the  Jews,  John  iii.  22-30,  and  iv.  1-3,  concerning  baptism, 
is  called  a  question  concerning  purification,  itepl  xaOapidMov. 

3d.  Matt.  xv.  2 ;  Mark  vii.  1-5 ;  Luke  xi.  37-39.  The  word 
fianziX,co  is  here  used  (1)  for  the  customary  washing  of  the 
hands  before  meals,  which  was  designed  to  purify,  and  was 
habitually  performed  by  pouring  water  upon  them,  2  Kings 
iii.  11;  (2)  it  is  interchanged  with  the  word  viitroo,  which  al- 
ways signifies  a  partial  washing;  (3)  its  effect  is  declared  to 
be  to  purify,  xaOapfetv;  (4)  the  baptized  or  washed  hands  are 
opposed  to  the  unclean,  xoivais. 


bl2  BAPTISM. 

4th.  Mark  vii.  4,  8,  "Baptism  of  pots  and  cups,  brazen  ve» 
sels,  and  of  tables,"  uXivat,  couches  upon  which  Jews  reclined 
at  their  meals,  large  enough  to  accommodate  several  persons 
at  once.  The  object  of  these  baptisms  was  purification,  and 
the  mode  could  not  have  been  immersion  in  the  case  of  the 
tables,  couches,  etc. 

5th.  Heb.  ix.  10,  Paul  says  the  first  tabernacle  "  stood  only 
in  meats,  and  drinks,  and  divers  baptisms."  In  verses  13,  19, 
21,  he  specifies  some  of  these  "  divers  baptisms  "  or  washings, 
"For  if  the  blood  of  bulls  and  goats,  and  the  ashes  of  an  heifer 
sprinkling  the  unclean,  sanctifieth  to  the  purifying  of  the  flesh," 
and  "  Moses  sprinkled  both  the  book  and  all  the  people,  and 
the  tabernacle,  and  all  the  vessels  of  the  ministry." — Dr.  Arm- 
strong's "  Doc.  of  Bapt,"  Part  I. 

16.  What  argument  in  favor  of  this  view  of  the  subject  may  be 
drawn  from  what  is  said  of  baptism  with  the  Holy  Ghost  ? 

Matt.  hi.  11;  Mark  i.  8;  Luke  iii.  16;  John  i.  26,  33;  Acta 
i.  5;  xi.  16;  1  Cor.  xii.  13. 

If  the  word  /3a7tn%oo  only  means  to  immerse,  it  would  be 
incapable  of  the  figurative  use  to  which,  in  these  passages,  it 
is  actually  subjected.  But  if,  as  we  claim,  it  signifies  to  purify, 
to  cleanse,  then  water  baptism,  as  a  washing,  though  never  as 
an  immersion,  may  fitly  represent  the  cleansing  work  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.     See  next  Question. 

17.  What  argument  may  be  drawn  from  the  fact  that  the  bless- 
ings symbolized  by  baptism  are  said  to  be  applied  by  springing  and 
pouring  ? 

The  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  was  the  grace  signified. — Acts 
ii.  1-4,  32,  33;  x.  44-48;  xi.  15,  16.  The  fire  which  did  not 
immerse  them,  but  appeared  as  cloven  tongues,  and  "  sat  unon 
each  one  of  them,"  was  the  sign  of  that  grace.  Jesus  was  him- 
self the  baptizer,  who  now  fulfilled  the  prediction  of  John  the 
Baptist  that  he  should  baptize  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with 
fire.  This  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  set  forth  in  such  terms  as 
"came  from  heaven,"  "poured  out,"  "shed  forth,"  "fell  on 
them." 

These  very  blessings  were  predicted  in  the  Old  Testament 
by  similar  language. — Is.  xliv.  3;  lii.  15;  Ezek.  xxxvi.  25-27; 
Joel  ii.  28,  29.  Hence  we  argue  that  if  these  spiritual  blessings 
were  predicted  in  the  Old  Testament  by  means  of  these  figures 
of  sprinkling  and  pouring,  and  if  in  the  New  Testament  they 
were  symbolically  set  forth  under  the  same  form,  they  may,  of 
course,  be  symbolized  by  the  church  now  by  the  same  emblem- 
atical actions. 


OLD    TESTAMENT  MODES    OF  PURIFICATION.  613 

18-  What  argument  may  be  drawn  from  the  mode  of  purifica- 
tion adopted  under  the  Old  Testament  ? 

The  rites  of  purification  prescribed  by  the  Levitical  law 
were  in  no  case  commanded  to  be  performed  by  immersion  in 
the  case  of  persons.  Washing  and  bathing  is  prescribed,  but 
there  is  no  indication  given  by  the  words  used,  or  otherwise, 
that  these  were  performed  by  immersion,  which  was  not  the 
usual  mode  of  bathing  practiced  in  those  countries.  The  hands 
and  feet  of  the  priests,  whenever  they  appeared  to  minister 
before  the  Lord,  were  washed,  Ex.  xxx.  18-21,  and  their  per- 
sonal ablutions  were  performed  at  the  brazen  laver,  2  Chron. 
iv.  6,  from  which  the  water  poured  forth  through  spouts  or 
cocks. — 1  Kings  vii.  27-39.  On  the  other  hand,  purification 
was  freely  ordered  to  be  effected  by  sprinkling  of  blood,  ashes, 
or  water. — Lev.  viii.  30;  xiv.  7  and  51;  Ex.  xxiv.  5-8;  Num. 
viii.  6,  7 ;  Heb.  ix.  12-22.  Now,  as  Christian  baptism  is  a  puri- 
fication, and  as  it  was  instituted  among  the  Jews,  familiar  with 
the  Jewish  forms  of  purification,  it  follows  that  a  knowledge 
of  those  forms  must  throw  much  light  upon  the  essential  nature 
and  proper  mode  of  the  Christian  rite. 

19.  How  may  it  be  shown  from  1  Cor.  x.  1,  2,  and  from  1  Pet. 
iii.  20,  21,  that  to  baptize  does  not  mean  to  immerse  ? 

1  Cor.  x.  1,  2.  The  Israelites  are  said  to  have  been  "  bap- 
tized unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea." — Compare  Ex. 
xiv.  19-31.  The  Israelites  were  baptized,  yet  went  over  dry- 
shod.  The  Egyptians  were  immersed,  yet  not  baptized.  Dr. 
Carson,  p.  413,  says,  Moses  "got  a  dry  dip." 

1  Pet.  iii.  20,  21.  Peter  declares  that  baptism  is  the  anti- 
type of  the  salvation  of  the  eight  souls  in  the  ark.  Yet  their 
salvation  consisted  in  their  not  being  immersed. 

20.  What  argument  as  to  tlie  proper  mode  of  baptism  is  to  be 
drawn  from  the  record  of  the  baptisms  performed  by  John? 

1st.  John's  baptism  was  not  the  Christian  sacrament,  but  a 
rite  of  purification  administered  by  a  Jew  upon  Jews,  under 
Jewish  law.  From  this  we  infer  (1)  that  it  was  not  performed 
by  immersion,  since  the  Levitical  purification  of  persons  was 
not  performed  in  that  way;  yet  (2)  that  he  needed  for  his 
purpose  either  a  running  stream  as  Jordan,  or  much  water  as 
at  JEnon  (or  the  springs),  because  under  that  law  whatsoever 
an  unclean  person  touched  previous  to  his  purification  became 
unclean,  Num.  xix.  21,  22,  with  the  exception  of  a  "fountain  or 
pit  in  which  is  plenty  of  water,"  Lev.  xi.  36,  which  he  could  not 
find  in  the  desert  in  which  he  preached.     After  the  gospel  (lis- 


G14  BAPTISM. 

pensation  was  introduced  we  hear  nothing  of  the  apostles  bap- 
tizing in  rivers,  or  needing  "much  water"  for  that  purpose. 

2d.  In  no  single  instance  is  it  stated  in  the  record  that  John 
baptized  by  immersion.  All  the  language  employed  applies 
rjust  as  naturally  and  as  accurately  to  a  baptism  performed  by 
affusion  (the  subject  standing  partly  in  the  water,  the  baptizer 
pouring  water  upon  the  person  with  his  hand).  The  phrases 
"baptized  in  Jordan,"  "coming  out  of  the  water,"  would  have 
been  as  accurately  applied  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other. 
That  John's  baptism  was  more  probably  performed  by  affusion 
appears  (1)  from  the  fact  that  it  was  a  purification  performed 
by  a  Jewish  prophet  upon  Jews,  and  that  Jewish  washings 
were  performed  by  affusion.  The  custom  was  general  then, 
and  has  continued  to  this  day.  (2.)  This  mode  better  accords 
with  the  vast  multitudes  baptized  by  one  man. — Matt.  hi.  5,  6; 
Mark  i.  5;  Luke  hi.  3-21.  (3.)  The  very  earliest  works  of 
Christian  art  extant  represent  the  baptism  of  Christ  by  John 
as  having  been  performed  by  affusion. — Dr.  Armstrong's  "Doc- 
trine of  Baptisms,"  Part  II.,  Chap.  iii. 

21.  What  evidence  is  afforded  by  the  instances  of  Christian 
baptism  recorded  in  the  New  Testament  ? 

1st.  It  has  been  abundantly  shown  above  that  the  command 
to  baptize  is  a  command  to  purify  by  washing  with  water,  and 
it  hence  follows  that  even  if  it  could  be  shown  that  the  apostles 
baptized  by  immersion,  that  fact  would  not  prove  that  particu- 
lar mode  of  washing  to  be  essential  to  the  validity  of  the  or- 
dinance, unless  it  can  be  proved  also  that,  according  to  the 
analogies  of  gospel  institutions,  the  mere  mode  of  obeying  a 
command  is  made  as  essential  as  the  thing  itself.  But  the 
reverse  is  notoriously  the  fact.  The  church  was  "organized  on 
certain  general  principles,  and  the  public  worship  of  the  gospel 
ordained,  but  the  details  as  to  the  manner  of  accomplishing 
those  ends  are  not  prescribed.  Christ  instituted  the  Lord's 
supper  at  night,  reclining  on  a  couch,  and  with  unleavened 
bread.     Yet  in  none  of  these  respects  is  the  "mode"  essential. 

2d.  But,  in  fact,  there  is  not  one  instance  in  which  the 
record  makes  it  even  probable  that  the  apostles  baptized  by 
immersion,  and  in  the  great  majority  of  instances  it  is  rendered 
in  the  last  degree  improbable. 

(1.)  The  baptism  of  the  eunuch  by  Philip,  Acts  viii.  26-39,  is 
the  only  instance  which  even  by  appearance  favors  immersion. 
But  observe  (a)  the  language  used  by  Luke,  even  as  rendered  in 
our  version,  applies  just  as  naturally  to  baptism  performed  by 
affusion  as  by  immersion.  (l>.)  The  Greek  prepositions,  e/s,  here 
translated  into,  and  in,  here  translated  out  of,  are  in  innumerable 


HISTORICAL    USAGE.  615 

instances  used  to  express  motion,  toward,  unto,  and  from. — Acta 
xxvi.  14;  xxvii.  34,  40.  They  probably  descended  from  the 
chariot  to  the  brink  of  the  water.  Philip  is  also  said  to  have 
"descended  to"  and  to  have  "ascended  from  the  water,"  but 
surely  he  was  not  also  immersed,  (c.)  The  very  passage  of 
Isaiah,  which  the  eunuch  was  reading,  Is.  Hi.  15,  declared  that 
the  Messiah,  in  whom  he  believed,  should  "  sprinkle  many  na- 
tions." (d.)  Luke  says  the  place  was  "a  desert,"  and  no  body 
of  water  sufficient  for  immersion  can  be  discovered  on  that 
road.  (2.)  Every  other  instance  of  Christian  baptism  recorded 
in  the  Scriptures  bears  evidence  positively  against  immersion, 
(a.)  The  baptism  of  three  thousand  in  Jerusalem  on  one  occa- 
sion on  the  day  of  Pentecost. — Acts  ii.  38-41.  (&.)  The  baptism 
of  Paul. — Acts  ix.  17,  18;  xxii.  12-16.  Ananias  said  to  him 
"standing  up,  be  baptized,"  dvatirds  fiditn6ai,  and,  "standing 
up,  he  was  baptized."  (c.)  The  baptism  of  Cornelius. — Acts  x. 
44-48.  (d.)  The  baptism  of  the  jailor,  at  Philippi. — Acts  xvi. 
32-34.  In  all  these  instances  baptism  was  administered  on  the 
spot,  wherever  the  convert  received  the  gospel.  Nothing  is 
said  of  rivers,  or  much  water,  but  vast  multitudes  at  a  time, 
and  individuals  and  families  were  baptized  in  their  houses,  or 
in  prisons,  wherever  they  happened  to  be  at  the  moment. 

22.  What  has  been  in  the  past,  and  what  is  in  the  present,  tJie 
usage  of  the  churches  as  to  the  mode  of  baptism? 

In  the  early  church  the  prevalent  mode  was  to  immerse  the 
naked  body.  For  several  ages  trine-immersion  was  practiced, 
or  the  dipping  the  head  of  the  person  standing  in  the  water 
three  times.  In  cases  of  extreme  danger  of  death,  and  when 
water  was  scarce,  affusion  or  sprinkling  was  considered  valid 
(Bingham's '"Christ.  Antiquities,"  Bk.  II.,  ch.  xi. ;  Neander's 
"Ch.  Hist.,"  Vol.  I.,  Torrey's  Trans.,  p.  310;  Schaff's  "Ch. 
Hist.,"  Vol.  II.,  §  92).  The  Greek  Church  has  insisted  on  im- 
mersion. The  Romish  and  Protestant  churches  admit  either 
form.     The  modern  customs  favor  sprinkling. 

The  Baptists  maintain  that  immersion  is  the  only  valid  bap- 
tism. All  other  western  churches  deny  this  and  maintain  the 
equal  validity  of  pouring  and  of  sprinkling.  —  "Con.  Faith," 
ch.  xxviii.,  §  3. 

No  advocate  of  sprinkling  can,  in  consistency  with  his  own 
fundamental  principles  or  with  the  historical  usages  of  the 
Christian  Church,  outlaw  immersion.  The  opposition  of  most 
churches  to  immersion  arises  from  the  narrow  and  arrogant 
claims  of  the  Baptists,  and  from  their  false  views  with  respect 
to  the  emblematic  import  of  baptism,  making  it  a  "burying* 
instead  of  a  "washing  ';  against  this  we  mean  to  pretest 


616  BAPTISM. 

Subjects  of  Baptism. 

23.  Who  are  tJie  proper  subjects  of  baptism  ? 

"Conf.  Faith,"  Chap,  xxviii.,  Section  4;  "L  Cat,"  Question 
166;  "S.  Cat.,"  Question  95. 

All  those,  and  those  only,  who  are  members  of  the  visible 
church,  are  to  be  baptized.  These  are,  1st,  they  who  make  a 
credible  profession  of  their  faith  in  Christ;  2d,  the  children  of 
one  or  both  believing  parents. 

24.  What  in  the  case  of  adults  are  the  prerequisites  of  baptism  ? 

Credible  profession  of  their  faith  in  Jesus  as  their  Saviour. 
This  is  evident — 1st.  From  the  very  nature  of  the  ordinance  as 
symbolizing  spiritual  gifts,  and  as  sealing  our  covenant  to  be 
the  Lord's.  2d.  From  the  uniform  practice  of  the  apostles  and 
evangelists. — Acts  ii.  41;  viii.  37.  For  a  full  answer  to  this 
question,  see  below  Ch.  XLIII.,  Ques.  25,  for  conditions  of  ad- 
mission to  Lord's  table,  which  are  identical  with  those  requisite 
for  baptism. 

25.  Upon  what  essential  constitutional  principle  of  human  nature 
does  this  institution  rest  ?  and  shoiv  Ivoio  that  principle  is  recognized 
in  aU  God's  providential  and  gracious  dealing  with  the  race. 

The  grand  peculiarity  of  humanity  is  that  while  each  indi- 
vidual is  a  free  responsible  moral  agent,  yet  we  constitute  a 
race,  reproduced  under  the  law  of  generation,  and  each  new- 
born agent  is  educated  and  his  character  formed  under  social 
conditions.  Hence  everywhere  the  "free-will  of  the  parent 
becomes  the  destiny  of  the  child."  Hence  results  the  repre- 
sentative character  of  progenitors,  and  the  inherited  character 
and  destiny  of  all  races,  nations,  and  families. 

This  principle  runs  through  all  God's  dealing  with  the  hu- 
man race  under  the  economy  of  redemption.  The  family  and 
not  the  individual  is  the  unit  embraced  in  all  covenants  and 
dispensations.  This  may  be  traced  in  all  God's  dealings  with 
Adam,  Noah  (Gen.  ix.  9),  Abraham  (Gen.  xvii.  7,  and  Gal.  iii.  8), 
and  the  nation  of  Israel  (Ex.  xx.  5 ;  Deut.  xxix.  10-13).  The 
same  principle  is  continued  in  the  Christian  dispensation  as 
asserted  by  Peter  in  the  first  sermon. — Acts  ii.  38-39. 

26.  What  is  the  visible  church,  to  which  baptism  is  tJie  initiating 
rite  ? 

1st.  The  word  church,  tHnXt/dia,  is  used  in  Scripture  in  the 
general  sense  of  the  company  of  God's  people,  called  out  from 
the  world,  and  bound  to  him  in  covenant  relations. 


THE    VISIBLE   CHURCH.  617 

2d.  The  true  spiritual  church,  therefore,  in  distinc  tion  to  the 
phenomenal  church  organized  on  earth,  consists  ot  the  whole 
company  of  the  elect,  who  are  included  in  the  eternal  covenant 
of  grace  formed  between  the  Father  and  the  second  Adam. — 
Eph.  v.  27;  Heb.  xii.  23. 

3d.  But  the  visible  church  universal  consists  of  "  all  those 
throughout  the  world  that  profess  the  true  religion,  together 
with  their  children,  and  is  the  kingdom  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  the  house  and  family  of  God,  out  of  which  there  is  no 
ordinary  possibility  of  salvation." — "Conf.  Faith,"  chap,  xxv., 
section  2.  This  visible  kingdom,  Christ,  as  Mediator  of  the 
covenant  of  grace,  has  instituted,  as  an  administrative  provi- 
sion, for  the  purpose  of  administering  thereby  the  provisions  of 
that  covenant ;  and  this  kingdom,  as  an  outward  visible  society 
of  professors,  he  established  by  the  covenant  he  made  with 
Abraham. — Gen.  xii.  1-3;  xvii.  1-14. 

4th.  Christ  has  administered  this  covenant  in  three  successive 
modes  or  dispensations.  (1.)  From  Abraham  to  Moses,  dur- 
ing which  he  attached  to  it  the  ratifying  seal  of  circumcision. 
(2.)  From  Moses  to  his  advent  (for  the  law  which  was  tem- 
porarily added  did  not  make  the  promise  of  none  effect,  but 
rather  administered  it  in  a  special  mode,  Gal.  iii.  17),  he  added 
a  new  seal,  the  passover,  emblematic  of  the  atoning  work  of 
the  promised  seed,  as  set  forth  in  the  clearer  revelation  then 
vouchsafed.  (3.)  From  Christ  to  the  end  of  the  world,  when 
the  promise  being  unfolded  in  an  incomparably  fuller  revelation, 
the  original  seals  are  superseded  by  baptism  and  the  Lord's 
Supper.     See  below,  Question  26. 

5th.  That  the  Abrahamic  covenant  was  designed  to  embrace 
the  visible  church  of  Christ,  and  not  his  mere  natural  seed  in 
their  family  or  national  capacity,  is  plain.  (1.)  It  pledged  sal- 
vation by  Christ  on  the  condition  of  faith. — Compare  Gen.  xii.  3, 
with  Gal.  iii.  8,  16;  Acts  iii.  25,  26.  (2.)  The  sign  and  seal  at- 
tached to  it  symbolized  spiritual  blessings,  and  sealed  justifica- 
tion by  faith. — Deut.  x.  15,  16;  xxx.  6;  Jer.  iv.  4;  Rom.  ii.  28,  29; 
iv.  11.  (3.)  This  covenant  was  made  with  him  as  the  repre- 
sentative of  the  visible  church  universal,  (a.)  It  was  made 
with  him  as  the  "father  of  many  nations."  Paul  said  it  con- 
stituted him  the  "heir  of  the  world,"  "the  father  of  all  them 
that  believe,"  Rom.  iv.  11,  13,  and  that  all  believers  in  Christ 
now,  Jew  or  Gentile,  are  "Abraham's  seed  and  heirs  according 
to  the  promise." — Gal.  iii.  29.  (b.)  It  contained  a  provision  for 
the  introduction  to  its  privileges  of  those  who  were  not  born 
of  the  natural  seed  of  Abraham. — Gen.  xvii.  12.  Multitudes  of 
such  proselytes  had  been  thus  introduced  before  the  advent 
of  Christ,  and  many  such  were  present  in  Jerusalem  as  mem- 


618  BAPTISM. 

bers  of  the  church  under  its  old  form  on  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
"out  of  every  nation  under  heaven." — Acts  ii.  5-11 

6th.  That  the  church  thus  embraced  in  this  administrative 
covenant  is  not  the  body  of  the  elect,  as  such,  but  the  visible 
church  of  professors  and  their  children,  is  evident,  because, 
(1.)  the  covenant  contains  the  offer  of  the  gospel,  including 
the  setting-  forth  of  Christ,  and  the  offer  of  his  salvation  to  all 
men  (all  the  families  of  the  earth)  on  the  condition  of  faith. 
Gal.  iii.  8.  But  this  belongs  to  the  visible  church,  and  must  bo 
administered  by  means  of  inspired  oracles  and  a  visible  minis- 
try. (2.)  As  an  indisputable  fact,  there  was  such  a  visible 
society  under  the  old  dispensation ;  and  under  the  new  dispen- 
sation all  Christians,  whatever  theories  they  may  entertain, 
attempt  to  realize  the  ideal  of  such  a  visible  society,  for  Chris- 
tian and  ministerial  communion.  (3.)  Under  both  dispensations 
Christ  has  committed  to  his  church,  as  to  a  visible  kingdom, 
written  records,  sacramental  ordinances,  ecclesiastical  institu- 
tions, and  a  teaching  and  ruling  ministry.  Although  these  are 
all  designed  to  minister  the  provisions  of  the  covenant  of  grace, 
and  to  effect  as  their  ultimate  end  the  ingathering  of  the  elect, 
it  is  evident  that  visible  signs  and  seals,  a  written  word  and  a 
visible  ministry,  can,  as  such,  attach  only  to  a  visible  church. 
Rom.  ix.  4;  Eph.  iv.  11.  (4.)  The  same  representation  of  the 
church  is  given  in  the  New  Testament,  in  the  parable  of  the 
tares,  etc. — Matt.  xiii.  24-30  and  47-50 ;  xxv.  1-13.  It  was  to 
consist  of  a  mixed  community  of  good  and  evil,  true  and  merely 
professed  believers,  and  the  separation  is  not  to  be  made  until 
the  "  end  of  the  world." 

7th.  This  visible  church  from  the  beginning  has  been  trans- 
mitted and  extended  in  a  twofold  manner.  (1.)  Those  who  are 
born  "strangers  from  the  covenants  of  promise,"  or  "aliens 
from  the  commonwealth  of  Israel,"  Eph.  ii.  12,  were  introduced 
to  that  relation  only  by  profession  of  faith  and  conformity  of 
life.  Under  the  old  dispensation  these  are  called  frrosclytcs. 
Acts  ii.  10;  Num.  xv.  15.  (2.)  All  born  within  the  covenant 
had  part  in  all  of  the  benefits  of  a  standing  in  the  visible  church 
by  inheritance.  The  covenant  was  with  Abraham  and  his 
"seed  after  him,  in  all  their  generations,  as  an  everlasting  covenant," 
and  consequently  they  received  the  sacrament  which  was  the 
sign  and  seal  of  that  covenant.  Hence  the  duty  of  teaching 
and  training  was  engrafted  on  the  covenant,  Gen.  xviii.  18,  19; 
and  the  church  made  a  school,  or  training  institution,  Deut 
vi.  6-9.  In  accordance  with  this,  Christ  commissioned  his 
apostles  to  disciple  all  nations,  baptizing  and  teaching  them. 
Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20.  Thus  the  church  is  represented  as  a  flock, 
including  the  lambs  with  the  sheep,  Is.  xl.  11,  and  as  a  vine- 


THE    CHURCH   ONE    UNDER   BOTH  DISPENSATIONS.    G19 

yard  in  which  the  scion  is  trained,  the  barren  tree  cultivated, 
and,  if  incurable,  cut  down. — Is.  v.  1-7 ;  Luke  xiii.  7,  8. 

27.  How  may  it  be  shown  that  this  visible  church  is  identical 
under  both  dispensations,  and  what  argument  may  be  thence  derived 
to  prove  that  the  infant  children  of  believers  should  be  baptized  ? 

1st.  The  church,  under  both  dispensations,  has  the  same 
nature  and  design.  The  Old  Testament  church,  embraced  in 
the  Abrahamic  covenant,  rested  on  the  gospel  offer  of  salvation 
by  faith. — Gal.  hi.  8;  Heb.  xi.  Its  design  was  to  prepare  a 
spiritual  seed  for  the  Lord.  Hence — (1.)  Its  foundation  was 
the  same — the  sacrifice  and  mediation  of  Christ.  (2.)  Condi- 
tions of  membership  were  the  same,  (a.)  Every  true  Israelite 
was  a  true  believer. — Gal.  hi.  7.  (b.)  All  Israelites  were  at  least 
professors  of  the  true  religion.  (3.)  Its  sacraments  symbolized 
and  sealed  the  same  grace  as  those  of  the  New  Testament 
church.  Thus  the  passover,  as  the  Lord's  Supper,  represented 
the  sacrifice  of  Christ. — 1  Cor.  v.  7.  Circumcision,  as  baptism, 
represented  "the  putting  off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh," 
and  baptism  is  called  by  Paul  "the  circumcision  of  Christ." 
Col.  ii.  11,  12.  Even  the  ritual  of  the  Mosaic  law  was  only  a 
symbolical  revelation  of  the  gospel. 

2d.  They  bear  precisely  the  same  name.  ixKAr/tiia  uvpiov, 
tlie  church  of  the  Lord,  is  an  exact  rendering  in  Greek  of  the 
Hebrew  rrtrp  i>np>  translated  in  our  version  the  "  congregation  of 
the  Lord." — Compare  Ps.  xxii.  22,  with  Heb.  ii.  12.  Thus 
Stephen  called  the  congregation  of  Israel  before  Sinai  "the 
church  in  the  wilderness." — Compare  Acts  vii.  38,  with  Ex. 
xxxii.  Thus  also  Christ  is  the  Greek  form  of  the  Hebrew 
Messiah,  and  the  elders  of  the  New  Testament  church  are  iden- 
tical in  function  and  name  with  those  of  the  synagogue. 

3d.  There  is  no  evidence  whatever  furnished  by  the  apos- 
tolical records  that  the  ancient  church  was  abolished  and  a 
new  and  a  different  one  organized  in  its  place.  The  apostles 
never  say  one  word  about  any  such  new  organization.  The 
pre-existence  of  such  a  visible  society  is  everywhere  taken  for 
granted  as  a  fact.  Their  disciples  were  always  added  to  the 
"church"  or  "congregation"  previously  existing. — Acts  ii.  47. 
The  Mosaic  ritual  law,  by  means  of  which  the  Abrahamic  char- 
acter of  the  church  had  been  administered  for  about  fifteen 
hundred  years,  was  indeed  abolished.  But  Paul  argues  that 
the  introduction  of  this  law,  four  hundred  and  thirty  years 
after,  could  not  make  the  promise  of  none  effect,  Gal.  iii.  17, 
and  consequently  the  disannulling  of  the  law  could  only  give 
place  to  the  more  perfect  execution  of  the  covenant,  and  devel- 
opment of  the  church  embraced  within  it 


620  BAPTISM. 

4th.  There  is  abundant  positive  evidence  that  the  ancient 
church,  resting  upon  its  original  charter,  was  not  abolished  by 
the  new  dispensation.  (1.)  Many  of  the  Old  Testament  proph- 
ecies plainly  declare  that  the  then  existing  visible  church,  instead 
of  being  abrogated  by  the  advent  of  the  Messiah,  should  thereby 
be  gloriously  strengthened  and  enlarged,  so  as  to  embrace  the 
Gentiles  also. — Is.  xlix.  13-23,  and  lx.  1-14  They  declare  also 
that  the  federal  constitution,  embracing  the  child  with  the  par- 
ent, shall  continue  under  the  new  dispensation  of  the  church, 
after  "  the  Eedeemer  has  come  to  Zion." — Is.  lix.  21,  22.  Peter, 
in  Acts  iii.  22,  23,  expounds  the  prophecy  of  Moses,  Deut.  xviii. 
15-19,  to  the  effect  that  every  soul  which  will  not  hear  that 
prophet  (the  Messiah)  shall  be  cut  off  from  among  the  people, 
t.  e.,  from  the  church,  which  of  course  implies  that  the  church 
from  which  they  are  cut  off  continues.  (2.)  In  precise  accord- 
ance with  these  prophecies  Paul  declares  tnat  the  Jewish  church 
was  not  abrogated,  but  that  the  unbelieving  Jews  were  cut  off 
from  their  own  olive-tree,  and  the  Gentile  branches  grafted  in 
in  their  place ;  and  he  foretells  the  time  when  God  will  graft 
the  Jews  back  again  into  their  own  stock  and  not  into  another. 
Rom.  xi.  18-26.  He  says  that  the  alien  Gentiles  are  made  fel- 
low-citizens with  believing  Jews  in  the  old  household  of  the 
faith. — Eph.  ii.  11-22.  (3.)  The  covenant  which  constituted  the 
ancient  church  also  constituted  Abraham  the  father  of  many  na- 
tions. The  promise  of  the  covenant  was  that  God  would  "  be 
a  God  unto  him  and  to  his  seed  after  him."  This  covenant, 
therefore,  embraced  the  "many  nations"  with  their  father 
Abraham.  Hence  it  never  could  have  been  fulfilled  until  the 
advent  of  the  Messiah,  and  the  abolishment  of  the  restrictive 
law.  Hence  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  instead  of  having  been 
superseded  by  the  gospel,  only  now  begins  to  have  its  just  ac- 
complishment. Hence,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  Peter  exhorts 
all  to  repent  and  be  baptized,  because  the  Abrahamic  covenant 
still  held  in  force  for  all  Jews  and  for  their  children,  and  for 
all  those  afar  off,  i.  e.,  Gentiles,  as  many  as  God  should  call. 
Acts  ii.  38,  39.  Hence  also  Paul  argued  earnestly  that  since 
the  Abrahamic  covenant  is  still  in  force,  therefore,  from  its  very 
terms,  the  Gentiles  who  should  believe  in  Christ  had  a  right  to 
a  place  in  that  ancient  church,  which  was  founded  upon  it, 
on  equal  terms  with  the  Jews.  "  In  thee  shall  all  nations  be 
blessed,  so  then,"  says  Paul,  "they  which  be  of  faith  are  blessed 
with  faithful  Abraham,"  and  all  who  believe  in  Christ,  Jew  or 
Gentile  indiscriminately,  "  are,"  to  the  full  intent  of  the  cove- 
nant, "Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  according  to  the  promise," 
Gal.  iii.  6-29,  which  promise  was,  "  I  will  be  a  God  to  thee,  and 

TO    TUT    SEED    AFTER    THEE." 


CHURCH  MEMBERSHIP   OF   CHILDREN  RECOGNIZED.    621 

The  bearing  of  this  argument  upon  the  question  of  infant 
baptism  is  direct  and  conclusive. 

1st.  Baptism  now  occupies  the  same  relation  to  the  covenant 
and  the  church  which  circumcision  did.  (1.)  Both  rites  repre- 
sent the  same  spiritual  grace,  namely,  regeneration. — Deut.  xxx. 
6;  Col.  ii.  11;  Rom.  vi.  3,  4.  (2.)  Baptism  is  now  what  circum- 
cision was,  the  seal,  or  confirming  sign,  of  the  Abrahamic  cov- 
enant. Peter  says,  "  be  baptised  for  the  promise  is  to  you  and 
to  your  children." — Acts  ii.  38,  39.  Paul  says  explicitly  that 
baptism  is  the  sign  of  that  covenant,  "for  as  many  as  have 
been  baptized  into  Christ  are  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  accord- 
ing to  the  promise,"  Gal.  iii.  27,  29;  and  that  baptism  is  the 
circumcision  of  Christ. — Col.  ii.  10,  11.  (3.)  Both  rites  are 
the  appointed  forms,  in  successive  eras,  of  initiation  into  the 
church,  which  we  have  proved  to  be  the  same  church  under 
both  dispensations. 

2d.  Since  the  church  is  the  same,  in  the  absence  of  all  ex- 
plicit command  to  the  contrary,  the  members  are  the  same. 
Children  of  believers  were  members  then.  They  ought  to  be 
recognized  as  members  now,  and  receive  the  initiatory  rite. 
This  the  apostles  took  for  granted  as  self-evident,  and  univer- 
sally admitted;  an  explicit  command  to  baptize  would  have 
implied  doubt  in  the  ancient  church  rights  of  infants. 

3d.  Since  the  covenant,  with  its  promise  to  be  "  a  God  to 
the  believer  and  his  seed,"  is  expressly  declared  to  stand  firm 
under  the  gospel,  the  believer's  seed  have  a  right  to  the  seal 
of  that  promise. — Dr.  John  M.  Mason's  "Essays  on  the  Church." 

28.  Present  the  evidence  that  Christ  recognized  the  church  stand- 
ing of  children. 

1st.  Christ  declares  of  little  children  (Matthew,  itaiSia,  Luke 
fipecpr},  infants')  that  "  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven." — Matt. 
xix.  14;  Luke  xviii.  16.  The  phrase  "kingdom  of  God  and  of 
heaven  "  signifies  the  visible  church  under  the  new  dispensa- 
tion.— Matt.  iii.  2;  xiii.  47. 

2d.  In  his  recommission  of  Peter,  after  his  apostasy,  our 
Lord  commanded  him,  as  under  shepherd,  to  feed  the  lambs,  as 
well  as  the  sheep  of  the  flock. — John  xxi.  15-17. 

3d.  In  his  general  commission  of  the  apostles,  he  com- 
manded them  to  disciple  nations  (which  are  always  consti- 
tuted of  families)  by  baptizing,  and  then  teaching  them. — 
Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20. 

29.  Show  that  the  apostles  always  acted  on  the  principle  that  the 
child  is  a  church  member  if  the  parent  is. 

The  apostles  were  not  settled  pastors  in  the  midst  of  an  ea- 


622  BAPTISM. 

tablished  Christian  community,  but  itinerant  missionaries  to 
an  unbelieving  world,  sent  not  to  baptize,  but  to  preach  the 
gospel. — 1  Cor  i.  17.  Hence  we  have  in  the  Acts  and  Epistles 
the  record  of  only  ten  separate  instances  of  baptism.  In  two 
of  these,  viz.,  of  the  eunuch  and  of  Paul,  Acts  viii.  38 ;  ix.  18, 
there  were  no  families  to  be  baptized.  In  the  case  of  the  three 
thousand  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  the  people  of  Samaria,  and 
the  disciples  of  John  at  Ephesus,  crowds  were  baptized  on  the 
very  spot  on  which  they  professed  to  believe.  Of  the  remain- 
ing five  instances,  in  the  four  cases  in  which  the  family  is  men- 
tioned at  all,  it  is  expressly  said  they  were  baptized,  viz.,  the 
households  of  Lydia  of  Thyatira,  of  the  jailer  of  Philippi,  of 
Stephanas,  and  of  Crispus. — Acts  xvi.  15,  32,  33 ;  xviii.  8 ;  1  Cor. 
i.  16.  In  the  remaining  instance  of  Cornelius,  the  record  im- 
plies that  the  family  was  also  baptized.  Thus  the  apostles,  in 
every  case,  without  a  single  recorded  exception,  baptized  be- 
lievers on  the  spot,  and  whenever  they  had  families,  they  also 
baptized  their  households,  as  such. 

They  also  addressed  children  in  their  epistles  as  members 
of  the  church. — Compare  Eph.  i.  1,  and  Col.  i.  1,  2,  with  Eph. 
vi.  1-3,  and  Col.  iii.  20.  And  declared  that  even  the  children  of 
only  one  believing  parent  were  to  be  regarded  "  holy,"  or  con- 
secrated to  the  Lord,  i.  e.,  as  church  members. — 1  Cor.  vii.  12-14. 

30.  What  argument  may  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  the  bless- 
ings symbolized  in  baptism  are  promised  and  granted  to  children  ? 

Baptism  represents  regeneration  in  union  with  Christ.  In- 
fants are  born  children  of  wrath,  even  as  others.  They  can 
not  be  saved,  therefore,  unless  they  are  born  again,  and  have 
part  in  the  benefits  of  Christ's  death.  They  are  evidently, 
from  the  nature  of  the  case,  in  the  same  sense  capable  of  being 
subjects  of  regeneration  as  adults  are.  "  Of  such  is  the  king- 
dom of  heaven." — Matt.  xxi.  15,  16;  Luke  i.  41,  44. 

31.  What  argument  may  be  draum  from  ilie,  practice  of  the 
early  church? 

The  practice  of  infant  baptism  is  an  institution  which  exists 
as  a  fact,  and  prevails  throughout  the  universal  church,  with 
the  exception  of  the  modern  Baptists,  whose  origin  can  be  def- 
initely traced  to  the  Anabaptists  of  Germany,  about  a.  d.  1537. 
Such  an  institution  must  either  have  been  handed  down  from 
the  apostles,  or  have  had  a  definite  commencement  as  a  nov- 
elty, which  must  have  been  signalized  by  opposition  and  con- 
troversy. As  a  fact,  however,  we  find  it  noticed  in  the  very 
earliest* records  as  a  universal  custom,  and  an  apostolical  tradi- 


INFANT  BAPTISM  APOSTOLICAL.  623 

tion.  Justin  Martyr,  writing  a.  d.  138,  says  that  "There  were 
among  Christians  of  his  time,  many  persons  of  both  sexes,  some 
sixty  and  some  seventy  years  old,  who  had  been  made  disciples 
of  Christ  from  their  infancy."  Irenaeus,  born  about  a.  d.  97, 
says,  "  He  came  to  save  all  by  himself;  all  I  say  who  by  him  are 
born  again  unto  God,  infants,  and  little  children  and  youths."  It 
is  acknowledged  by  Tertullian,  born  in  Carthage,  a.  d.  160,  or 
only  sixty  years  alter  the  death  of  the  apostle  John.  Origen, 
born  of  Christian  parents  in  Egypt,  a.  d.  185,  declares  that  it 
was  "the  usage  of  the  church  to  baptize  infants,"  and  that 
"  the  church  had  received  the  tradition  from  the  apostles." 
Cyprian,  bishop  of  Carthage  from  a.  d.  248  to  258,  together 
with  an  entire  synod  over  which  he  presided,  decided  that 
baptism  should  be  administered  to  infants  before  the  eighth 
day.  St.  Augustine,  born  a.  d.  358,  declared  that  this  "  doc- 
trine is  held  by  the  whole  church,  not  instituted  by  councils, 
but  always  retained."  This  Pelagius  admitted,  after  having 
visited  all  parts  of  the  church  from  Britain  to  Syria,  although 
the  fact  was  so  repugnant  to  his  system  of  doctrine. — See  Wall's 
"  Hist,  of  Infant  Baptism,"  and  Bingham's  "Christ.  Antiquities," 
Bk.  XL,  Ch.  iv. 

Our  argument  is  that  infant  baptism  has  prevailed  (a)  from 
the  apostolic  age,  (b)  in  all  sections  of  the  ancient  church,  (c) 
uninterruptedly  to  the  present  time,  (d)  in  every  one  of  the 
great  historical  churches  of  the  Keformation.  While  its  im- 
pugners  (a)  date  since  the  Keformation,  (b)  and  are  generally 
guilty  of  the  gross  schismatical  sin  of  close  communion. 

32.  How  is  live,  objection,  that  faith  is  a  prerequisite  to  baptism, 
and  that  infants  can  not  believe,  to  be  answered  ? 

The  Baptists  argue — 1st.  From  the  commission  of  the  Lord, 
"Go  preach — he  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved; 
he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned,"  Mark  xvi.  16,  that  infants 
ought  not  to  be  baptized  because  they  can  not  believe.  2d.  From 
the  nature  of  baptism,  as  a  sign  of  a  spiritual  grace  and  seal  of 
a  covenant,  that  infants  ought  not  to  be  baptized,  since  they 
are  incapable  of  understanding  the  sign,  or  of  contracting  the 
covenant. 

We  answer — 1st.  The  requisition  of  faith  evidently  applies 
only  to  the  adult,  because  faith  is  made  the  essential  prere- 
quisite of  salvation,  and  yet  infants  are  saved,  though  they  can 
not  believe.  2d.  Circumcision  was  a  sign  of  a  spiritual  grace ; 
it  required  faith  in  the  adult  recipient,  and  it  was  the  seal  of 
a  covenant;  yet,  by  God's  appointment,  infants  were  circum- 
cised. The  truth  is  that  faith  is  required,  but  it  is  the  faith  of 
the  parent  acting  for  his  child.     The  covenant  of  which  bap- 


624  BAPTISM. 

tism  is  the  seal  is  contracted  with  the  parent,  in  behalf  of  the 
child  upon  whom  the  seal  is  properly  applied. 

It  is  besides  to  be  remembered  that  the  infant  is  not  a  thing, 
but  a  person  born  with  an  unholy  moral  nature,  and  fully  ca- 
pable of  present  regeneration,  and  of  receiving  from  the  Holy 
Ghost  the  "habit"  or  state  of  soul  of  which  faith  is  the  expres- 
sion. Hence  Calvin  says  ("Instit,"  Bk.  4,  ch.  xvi.,  §  20),  "The 
seed  of  both  repentance  and  faith  lies  hid  in  them  by  the  secret 
operation  of  the  Spirit." 

33.  How  can  we  avoid  the  conclusion  that  infants  should  be  ad- 
mitted to  the  Lord's  Supper,  if  they  are  admitted  to  baptism  ? 

The  same  reason  and  the  same  precedents  do  not  hold  in 
relation  to  both  sacraments.  1st.  Baptism  recognizes  and  seals 
church  membership,  while  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a  commemora- 
tive act.  2d.  In  the  action  of  baptism  the  subject  is  passive, 
and  in  that  of  the  Lord's  Supper  active.  3d.  Infants  were  never 
admitted  to  the  Passover  until  they  were  capable  of  compre- 
hending the  nature  of  the  service.  4th.  The  apostles  baptized 
households,  but  never  admitted  households  as  such  to  the 
Supper. 

34.  WJiose  children  ought  to  be  baptized  ? 

"Infants  of  such  as  are  members  of  the  visible  church," 
"  S.  Cat,"  Q.  95 ;  that  is,  theoretically,  "  infants  of  one  or  both 
believing  parents,"  "Con.  of  Faith,"  Chap,  xxviii.,  sec.  4;  and 
practically,  "of  parents,  one  or  both  of  them  professing  faith 
in  Christ." — "L.  Cat,"  Q.  166.  Roman  Catholics,  Episcopalians, 
the  Protestants  of  the  continent,  the  Presbyterians  of  Scotland 
(and  formerly  of  this  country),  act  upon  the  principle  that 
every  baptized  person,  not  excommunicated,  being  himself  a 
member  of  the  visible  church,  has  a  right  to  have  his  child 
regarded  and  treated  as  such  also.  Even  when  parents  are 
unbelievers  Catholics  and  Episcopalians  will  baptize  their  in- 
fants upon  the  faith  of  sponsors. 

It  is  evident,  however,  that  only  the  children  of  such  parents, 
or  actual  guardians,  as  make  a  credible  profession  of  personal 
faith  ought  to  be  baptized.  1st.  Because  of  the  nature  of  the 
act  Faith  is  the  condition  of  the  covenant  of  which  baptism  is 
the  seal.  The  Gen.  Assembly  of  1794  decided  that  our  "Direc- 
tory for  Worship "  demands  that  the  parent  enters  before  God 
and  the  Church  into  an  express  engagement,"  "  that  they  pray 
with  and  for  the  child,  that  they  set  an  example  of  piety  and 
godliness  before  it,"  etc.  And  the  Gen.  Synod  of  1735  asserts 
that  if  other  than  parents  professing  piety  are  encouraged  to 
take  these  engagements  "the  seal  would  be  set  to  a  blank" 


THE   EFFICACY   OF  BAPTISM.  625 

("Moore's  Digest,"  pp.  665  and  666).  Hence  it  is  evident  that 
the  conditions  prerequisite  for  having  one's  children  baptized 
are  precisely  the  same  with  those  prerequisite  for  being  bap- 
tized or  admitted  to  the  Lord's  Supper  one's  self,  i.  e.,  credible 
profession  of  a  true  faith. 

2d.  Sponsors  who  are  neither  parents  nor  actual  and  per- 
manent guardians  are  evidently  neither  the  providentially  con- 
stituted representatives  of  the  child,  nor  in  a  position  to  make 
good  their  engagements. 

3d.  Those  who,  having  been  baptized,  do  not  by  faith  and 
obedience  discharge  their  baptismal  vows  when  they  are  of 
mature  age,  are  ipso  facto  in  a  state  of  suspension  from  cove- 
nant privileges,  and  can  not,  therefore,  plead  them  for  their 
children. 

4th.  The  apostles  baptized  the  households  only  of  those 
who  professed  faith  in  Christ. 

The  Efficacy  of  Baptism. 

35.  What  is  the  Romish  and  Ritualistic  doctrine  as  to  tlie  effi- 
cacy of  baptism. 

The  Romish  doctrine,  with  which  the  "  Tractarian  "  doctrine 
essentially  agrees,  is,  1st,  that  baptism  confers  the  merits  of 
Christ  and  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  therefore  (1)  it 
cleanses  from  inherent  corruption ;  (2)  it  secures  the  remission 
of  the  penalty  of  sin;  (3)  it  secures  the  infusion  of  sanctify- 
ing grace;  (4)  it  unites  to  Christ;  (5)  it  impresses  upon  the 
soul  an  indelible  character;  (6)  it  opens  the  portals  of  heaven. 
Newman,  "Lectures  on  Justification,"  p.  257;  "Cat.  Rom.," 
Pt.  II.,  Chap,  ii.,  Q.  32-44.  2d.  That  the  efficacy  of  the  ordi- 
nance is  inherent  in  itself  in  virtue  of  the  divine  institution. 
Its  virtue  does  not  depend  either  on  the  merit  of  the  officiating 
minister,  nor  on  that  of  the  recipient,  but  in  the  sacramental 
action  itself  as  an  opus  operatum.  In  the  case  of  infants,  the 
only  condition  of  its  efficiency  is  the  right  administration  of 
the  ordinance.  In  the  case  of  adults  its  efficiency  depends 
upon  the  additional  condition  that  the  recipient  is  not  in  mor- 
tal sin,  and  does  not  resist  by  an  opposing  will. — Dens  "De 
Baptismo,"  N.  29. 

36.  What  is  the  Lutheran  doctrine  on  this  subject  ? 

The  Lutherans  agreed  with  the  Reformed  churches  in  repu- 
diating the  Romish  doctrine  of  the  magical  efficacy  of  this 
sacrament  as  an  opus  operatum.  But  they  went  much  further 
than  the  Reformed  in  maintaining  the  sacramental  union  be- 
tween the  sign  and  the  grace  signified.  Luther,  in  his  "Small 
40 


626  BAPTISM. 

Cat.,"  Pt.  iv.,  sec.  2,  says  baptism,  "  worketh  forgiveness  of  sins, 
delivers  from  death  and  the  devil,  and  confers  everlasting  sal- 
vation on  all  who  believe,"  and,  in  sec.  3,  that  "  it  is  not  the 
water  indeed  which  produces  these  effects,  but  the  word  of  God 
which  accompanies,  and  is  connected  with  the  water,  and  our 
faith,  which  relies  on  the  word  of  God  connected  with  the 
water.  For  the  water  without  the  word  is  simply  water  and 
no  baptism.  But  when  connected  with  the  word  of  God,  it  is 
a  baptism,  that  is,  a  gracious  water  of  life,  and  a  washing  of 
regeneration."  This  efficacy  depends  upon  true  saving  faith 
in  the  adult  subject :  "  Moreover,  faith  being  absent,  it  remains 
only  a  naked  and  inoperative  sign." 

Hence  they  hold — 1st.  Baptism  is  an  efficient  means  of  con- 
ferring the  forgiveness  of  sins  and  the  grace  of  Christ.  2d.  It 
contains  the  grace  it  confers.  3d.  Its  efficacy  resides  not  in 
the  water  but  in  the  word,  and  in  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  word. 
4th.  Its  efficacy,  in  the  case  of  the  adult,  depends  upon  the 
faith  of  the  subject.  Krauth's  "  Conservative  Keformation," 
pp.  545-584. 

37.  What  was  the  Zwinglian  doctrine  on  this  subject  ? 

That  the  outward  rite  is  a  mere  sign,  an  objective  rep- 
resentation by  symbol  of  the  truth,  having  no  efficacy  what- 
ever beyond  that  due  to  the  truth  represented. 

38.  What  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Reformed  churches,  and  of  our 
own  among  Hue  number,  on  this  subject  ? 

They  all  agree,  1st,  that  the  Zwinglian  view  is  incomplete. 

2d.  That  besides  being  a  sign,  baptism  is  also  the  seal  of 
grace,  and  therefore  a  present  and  sensible  conveyance  and  con- 
firmation of  grace  to  the  believer  who  has  the  witness  in  him- 
self, and  to  all  the  elect  a  seal  of  the  benefits  of  the  covenant 
of  grace,  to  be  sooner  or  later  conveyed  in  God's  good  time. 

3d.  That  this  conveyance  is  effected,  not  by  the  bare  opera- 
tion of  the  sacramental  action,  but  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  which 
accompanies  his  own  ordinance. 

4th.  That  in  the  adult  the  reception  of  the  blessing  depends 
upon  faith. 

5th.  That  the  benefits  conveyed  by  baptism  are  not  peculiar 
to  it,  but  belong  to  the  believer  before  or  without  baptism,  and 
are  often  renewed  to  him  afterwards. 

Our  "Conf.  Faith,"  Chap,  xxviii.,  sections  5  and  6,  affirms, 

"  1st.  '  That  by  the  right  use  of  this  ordinance  the  grace 
promised  is  not  only  offered,  but  really  exhibited  and  conferred 
by  the  Holy  Ghost  to  such  (whether  of  age  or  infants),  as  that 
grace  belongeth  unto.' 


DOCTRINE    OF  BAPTISMAL    REGENERATION.  627 

"  2d.  That  baptism  does  not  in  all  cases  secure  the  blessings 
of  the  covenant. 

"3d.  That  in  the  cases  in  which  it  does  the  gift  is  not 
connected  necessarily  in  time  with  the  administration  of  the 
ordinance. 

"4th.  That  these  blessings  depend  upon  two  things:  (1)  the 
right  use  of  the  ordinance;  (2)  the  secret  purpose  of  God." — 
Dr.  Hodge. 

39.  What  in  general  is  the  doctrine  Jcnotvn  as  Baptismal  Bcgen- 
eration  ?  On  what  ground  does  it  rest  ?  and  how  can  it  he  shoitm 
to  be  false  ? 

The  Protestant  advocates  of  Baptismal  Kegeneration,  with- 
out committing  themselves  to  the  Komish  theory  of  an  opus 
operation,  hold  that  baptism  is  God's  ordained  instrument  of 
communicating  the  benefits  of  redemption  in  the  first  instance. 
That  whatever  gracious  experiences  may  be  enjoyed  by  the 
unbaptized,  are  uncovenanted  mercies.  That  by  baptism  the 
guilt  of  original  sin  is  removed,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  is  given, 
whose  effects  remain  like  a  seed  in  the  soul,  to  be  actualized 
by  the  free-will  of  the  subject,  or  neglected  and  hence  rendered 
abortive.  Every  infant  is  regenerated  when  baptized.  If  he 
dies  in  infancy  the  seed  is  actualized  in  paradise.  If  he  lives 
to  adult  age,  its  result  depends  upon  his  use  of  it  (Blunt's 
"  Diet,  of  Theology,"  Art.  Baptism).  See  above,  Ch.  XXIX., 
Ques.  4. 

They  rest  their  doctrine  on  a  large  class  of  Scripture  pas- 
sages like  the  following,  "  Christ  gave  himself  for  the  church 
that  he  might  sanctify  and  cleanse  it  by  the  washing  of  water, 
by  the  word,"  Eph  v.  26,  "Arise  and  be  baptized,  and  wash 
away  thy  sins." — Acts  xxii.  16.  Also  John  iii.  5;  1  Pet.  iii.  21; 
Gal.  iii.  27,  etc. 

The  Reformed  explain  these  passages  on  the  following  prin- 
ciples. 1st.  In  every  sacrament  there  are  two  things  (a)  an 
outward  visible  sign,  and  (b)  an  inward  invisible  grace  thereby 
signified.  There  is  between  these  a  sacramental  or  symbolical 
relation  that  naturally  gives  rise  to  a  iisus  loquendi,  whereby  the 
properties  and  effects  of  the  grace  are  attributed  to  the  sign. 
Yet  it  never  follows  that  the  two  are  inseparable,  any  more 
than  it  proves  the  absurdity  that  the  two  are  identical. 

2d.  The  sacraments  are  badges  of  religious  faith,  and  neces- 
sarily involve  the  profession  of  that  faith.  In  all  ordinary  lan- 
guage, therefore,  that  faith  is  presumed  to  be  present,  and  to  be 
genuine,  in  which  case  the  grace  signified  by  the  sacrament 
is,  of  course,  always  not  only  offered  but  conveyed  ("S.  Cat/ 
Ques.  91  and  92). 


628  BAPTISM. 

That  baptism  can  not  be  the  only  or  even  the  ordinary 
means  of  conveying  the  grace  of  regeneration  (i.  e.,  for  initi- 
ating the  soul  into  a  state  of  grace)  is  plain. — 1st.  Faith  and 
repentance  are  the  fruits  of  regeneration.  But  faith  and  re- 
pentance are  required  as  conditions  prerequisite  to  baptism. — 
Acts  ii.  38;  viii.  37;  x.  47,  and  xi.  17. 

2d.  This  doctrine  is  identical  with  that  of  the  Pharisees, 
which  Christ  and  his  apostles  constantly  rebuked. — Matt,  xxiii. 
23-26.  "  For  in  Christ  Jesus  neither  circumcision  availeth  any 
thing,  nor  uncircumcision,  but  faith  that  worketh  by  love — but 
a  new  creature." — Gal.  v.  6,  and  vi.  15;  Rom.  ii.  25-29.  Faith 
alone  is  said  to  save,  the  absence  of  faith  alone  to  damn. — Acts 
x\i.  31,  and  Mark  xvi.  16. 

3d.  The  entire  spirit  and  method  of  the  gospel  is  ethical  not 
magical.  The  great  instrument  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  the  truth, 
and  all  that  is  ever  said  of  the  efficacy  of  the  sacraments  is 
said  of  the  efficacy  of  the  truth.  They  are  means  of  grace 
therefore  in  common  with  the  word  and  as  they  contain  and 
seal  it  (1  Pet.  i.  23,  and  John  xvii.  17,  19).  Our  Saviour  says 
"  by  their  fruits  ye  shall  hnoio  them." — (Matt.  vii.  20). 

4th.  This  doctrine  is  disproved  by  experience.  Vast  mul- 
titudes of  the  baptized  of  all  ages  and  nations  bring  forth  none 
of  the  fruits  of  regeneration.  Multitudes  who  were  never  bap- 
tized have  produced  these  fruits.  The  ages  and  communities 
in  which  this  doctrine  has  been  most  strictly  held  have  been 
conspicuous  for  spiritual  barrenness. 

5th.  The  great  evil  of  the  system  of  which  the  doctrine  of 
baptismal  regeneration  is  a  part,  is  that  it  tends  to  make  re- 
ligion a  matter  of  external  and  magical  forms,  and  hence  to 
promote  rationalistic  skepticism  among  the  intelligent,  and 
superstition  among  the  ignorant  and  morbid,  and  to  dissociate 
among  all  classes  religion  and  morality. 

The  Necessity  of  Baptism. 

40.  What  is  the  Romish  doctrine  as  to  the  necessity  of  baptism  ? 

That  it  is  by  the  appointment  of  God  the  one  means,  sine 
qua  non,  of  justification  (regeneration,  etc.)  both  for  infants  and 
adults.  In  the  case  of  adults  they  except  only  the  case  of  those 
who  have  formed  a  sincere  purpose  of  being  baptized,  which 
has  been  providentially  hindered.  In  the  case  of  infants  there 
is  no  exception. 

41.  What  is  the  Lh  flier  an  view? 

Their  standards  state  the  necessity  of  the  sacraments  with- 
out apparent  qualification  (See  "Aug.  Conf,"  Art.  9,  and  "  ApoL 


THE   NECESSITY   OF  BAPTISM.  629 

Aug.  Conf.,"  p.  156,  quoted  under  last  chapter).  But  Dr.  Krauth 
has  shown  from  the  writings  of  Luther  and  their  standard  the- 
ologians, that  their  actual  view  was  that  (1)  baptism  is  not 
essential  (as  e.  g.,  Christ's  atonement  is),  but  that  (2)  it  is  neces- 
sary, as  the  ordained  ordinary  means  of  conferring  grace,  yet 

(3)  not  unconditionally,  because  the  "necessity"  is  limited  (a)  by 
the  possibility  of  having  it,  so  that  not  the  deprivation  of  bap- 
tism, but  the  contempt  of  it  condemns  a  man,  and  (6)  by  the 
fact  that  all  the  blessings  of  baptism  are  conditioned  on  faith. 

(4)  Baptism  is  not  always  followed  by  regeneration,  and  regen- 
eration is  not  always  preceded  by  baptism,  and  men  may  be 
saved  though  unbaptized.  (5)  That  within  the  church  all  in- 
fants are  saved  although  unbaptized.  (6)  As  to  infants  of 
heathen,  the  point  undecided,  because  unrevealed,  but  hopeful 
views  entertained. — Krauth's  "  Conserv.  Keform.,"  pp.  557-564. 

42.  What  is  the  Reformed  doctrine  ? 

That  it  is  "  necessary  "  because  commanded,  and  universally 
obligatory,  because  it  is  a  divinely  ordained  and  most  precious 
means  of  grace,  which  it  would  be  impious  knowingly  and 
willingly  to  neglect.  And  because  it  is  the  appointed  and  com- 
monly recognized  badge  whereby  our  allegiance  to  Christ  is 
openly  acknowledged.  Under  the  circumstances,  intelligent 
neglect  of  the  sacraments  looks  very  like  treason. 

But  baptism  does  not  ordinarily  confer  grace  in  the  first 
instance,  but  presupposes  it,  and  the  grace  it  symbolizes  and 
seals  is  often  realized  both  before  and  without  their  use. — 
"Conf.  Faith,"  Ch.  xxviii.,  "Cal.  Instit,"  Bk.  IV.,  ch.  xvi.,  §  26. 

The  Authoritative  Creed  Statements. 

Eohish  Doctrine. 

"Cat.  Cone.  Trident.,"  Pt.  2,  Ch.  2,  Ques.  5.— "It  follows  that  baptism 
may  be  accurately  and  appositely  defined  to  be  the  sacrament  of  regen- 
eration by  water  in  the  word.  For  by  nature  we  are  born  from  Adam 
children  of  wrath,  but  by  baptism  we  are  regenerated  in  Christ  children 
of  mercy." 

lb.,  Pt.  2,  Ch.  2,  Ques.  33. — "For  as  no  other  means  of  salvation 
remains  for  infant  children  except  baptism,  it  is  ea3y  to  comprehend 
the  enormity  of  the  guilt  under  which  they  lay  themselves,  who  suffer 
them  to  be  deprived  of  the  grace  of  the  sacrament  longer  than  necessity 
requires." 

Bellarmin,  "Bapt.,"  1,  4. — "The  church  has  always  believed  that  in- 
fants perish  if  they  depart  this  life  without  baptism.  For  although  little 
children  fail  of  baptism  without  any  fault  of  their  own,  yet  they  do  not 
perish  without  their  own  fault,  since  they  have  original  sin." 

Lutheran  Doctrine. — See  quotations  under  last  chapter. 

Quenstedt,  iv.,  147. — "By  baptism  and  in  baptism  the  Holy  Ghost 
excites  in  infants  a  true,  saving,  life-giving,  and  actual  faith,  whenctf 
also  baptized  infants  truly  believe. " 


630  BAPTISM. 

"Art.  Smalcald,  '  pt.  3,  art.  5,  "Be  Baptismo." — "Baptism  is  nothing 
else  than  the  word  of  God  with  dipping  in  water,  according  to  his  insti- 
tution and  command.  .  .  .  The  word  is  added  to  the  element  and 
it  becomes  a  sacrament." 

"Cat.  Minor"  iv.,  Ques.  3. — "Baptism  effects  remission  of  sins,  liber- 
ates from  death  and  the  devil,  and  gives  eternal  blessedness  to  all  and 
each  who  believe  this  which  the  word  and  divine  promises  hold  forth." 

Reformed  Doctrine. 

"Cat.  Qenev."  p.  522. — "The  signification  of  baptism  has  two  parts, 

for  therein  is  represented  remission  of  sins Do  you  attribute 

nothing  else  to  the  water,  than  that  it  is  only  a  figure  of  washing  ?  I 
think  it  is  such  a  figure,  that  at  the  same  time  a  truth  is  joined  with  it. 
For  God  does  not  disappoint  us  in  promising  to  us  his  gifts.  Hence  it 
is  certain  that  pardon  of  sins  and  newness  of  life  are  offered  and  received 
by  us  in  baptism." 

Calvin's  "Inst  it."  B.  iv.,  Ch.  16,  \  26.— "I  would  not  be  understood 
as  insinuating  that  baptism  may  be  contemned  with  impunity.  So  far 
from  excusing  this  contempt,  I  hold  that  it  violates  the  covenant  of  the 
Lord.  The  passage  (John  v.  24)  only  serves  to  show  that  we  must  not 
deem  baptism  so  necessary  as  to  suppose  that  every  one  who  has  lost  the 
opportunity  of  obtaining  it  has  forthwith  perished." 

"Thirty-nine  Art.  of  Ch.  of  England"  Art.  27. — "Baptism  is  not  only 
a  sign  of  profession,  and  mark  of  difference,  whereby  Christian  men  are 
discerned  from  others  that  are  not  christened,  but  it  is  also  a  sign  of  re- 
generation or  new  birth,  whereby,  as  by  an  instrument,  they  that  receive 
baptism  rightly  are  grafted  into  the  chiu'ch :  the  promises  of  the  forgive- 
ness of  sin,  and  of  our  adoption  to  be  the  sons  of  God  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
are  visibly  signed  and  sealed;  faith  is  confirmed,  and  grace  increased  by 
virtue  of  prayer  unto  God." 

"  The  baptism  of  young  children  is  in  any  wise  to  be  retained  in  the 
church,  as  most  agreeable  with  the  institution  of  Christ. " 

"Conf.  Faith,"  Ch.  28;  " L.  Cat.,"  Q.  165-167;  " S.  Cat.,"  Q.  94,  95. 

§  1. — "Baptism  is  a  sacrament  of  the  New  Testament,  ordained  by 
Jesus  Christ,  not  only  for  the  solemn  admission  of  the  party  baptized 
into  the  visible  church,  but  also  to  be  unto  him  a  sign  and  seal  of  the 
covenant  of  grace,  of  his  ingrafting  into  Christ,  of  regeneration,  of  remis- 
sion of  sins,  and  of  his  giving  up  unto  God,  through  Jesus  Christ,  to 
walk  in  newness  of  life." 

\  5. — "Although  it  be  a  great  sin  to  contemn  or  neglect  this  ordinance, 
yet  grace  and  salvation  are  net  so  inseparably  annexed  unto  it,  as  that  no 
person  can  be  regenerated  or  saved  without  it,  or  that  all  that  are  bap- 
tized are  undoubtedly  regenerated." 

d  6. — "The  efficacy  of  baptism  is  not  tied  to  that  moment  of  time 
wherein  it  is  administered;  yet,  notwithstanding,  by  the  right  use  of  this 
ordinance  the  grace  promised  is  not  only  offered,  but  really  exhibited 
and  conferred  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  such  (whether  of  age  or  infants)  as 
that  grace  belongeth  unto,  according  to  the  council  of  God's  own  will, 
in  his  appointed  time." 

Soctnian  Doctrine. — Socinus  believed  baptism  to  have  been  practiced 
by  the  apostles  after  the  death  of  Christ,  and  to  have  been  applicable 
only  to  converts  from  without  the  church.  Socinians  generally  held 
baptism  to  be  only  a  badge  of  public  profession  of  adherence  to  Christ, 
and  maintained  that  immersion  is  the  only  proper  mode,  and  adults  the 
only  proper  subjects. — "Bacovian  Cat.,"  Section  5,  Ch.  3. 


CHAPTER    XLIII. 

THE  LORD'S  SUPPER. 

1.  In  tuhat  'passages  of  the  New  Testament  is  the  institution  of 
the  Lord's  Supper  recorded  ? 

Matt.  xxvi.  26-28;  Mark  xiv.  22-24;  Luke  xxii.  17-20;  1 
Cor.  x.  16,  17;  and  xi.  23-30. 

2.  Prove  that  its  observance  is  a  perpetual  obligation. 

1st.  From  the  words  of  institution,  "Do  this  in  remembrance 
of  me,"  and  again  "this  do  as  oft  as  ye  drink  it  in  remembrance 
of  me."  2d.  Paul's  word. — 1  Cor.  xi.  26.  "  For  as  often  as  ye 
eat  this  bread  and  drink  this  cup  ye  do  show  the  Lord's  death 
till  he  come."  3d.  The  apostolic  example  (Acts  ii.  42  and  46; 
xx.  7,  etc).  4th.  The  frequent  reference  to  it  as  of  perpetual 
obligation  in  the  apostolical  writings  (1  Cor.  x.  16-21,  etc). 
5th.  The  practice  of  the  entire  Christian  church  in  all  its 
branches  from  the  first. 

3.  What  are  the  various  phrases  used  in  Scripture  to  designate 
tJi£  Lords  Supper,  and  their  import  ? 

1st.  "Lord's  Supper." — 1  Cor.  xi.  20.  The  Greek  word 
SeItcvov,  translated  supper,  designated  the  dinner,  or  principal 
meal  of  the  Jews,  taken  towards  or  in  the  evening.  Hence 
this  sacrament  received  this  name  because  it  was  instituted  at 
that  meal.  It  was  called  the  "  Lord's,"  because  it  was  instituted 
by  him,  to  commemorate  his  death,  and  signify  and  seal  his 
grace. 

2d.  "Cup  of  blessing." — 1  Cor.  x.  16.  The  cup  was  blessed 
by  Christ,  and  the  blessing  of  God  is  now  invoked  upon  it  by 
the  officiating  minister. — Matt.  xxvi.  26,  27. 

3d.  "  Lord's  Table." — 1  Cor.  x.  21.  Table  here  stands  by  a 
usual  figure  for  the  provisions  spread  upon  it.  It  is  the  table 
at  which  the  Lord  invites  his  guests,  and  at  which  he  presides. 

4th.  "  Communion." — 1  Cor.  x.  16.  In  partaking  of  this 
sacrament,  the  fellowship  of  the  believer  with  Christ  is  e6tab- 


632  THE    LORD'S    SUPPER. 

lished  and  exercised  in  a  mutual  giving  and  receiving,  and 
consequently  also  the  fellowship  of  believers  with  one  another, 
through  Christ. 

5th.  "  Breaking  of  bread." — Acts  ii.  42.  Here  the  symboli 
cal  action  of  the  officiating  minister  is  put  for  the  whole 
service. 

4.  By  ivhat  other  terms  icas  it  designated  in  the  early  church  ? 

1st.  "  Eucharist,"  from  ivxapidreoo,  to  give  thanks.  See  Matt. 
xxvi.  27.  This  beautifully  designates  it  as  a  thanksgiving  ser- 
vice. It  is  both  the  cup  of  thanksgiving,  whereby  we  celebrate 
the  grace  of  God  and  pledge  our  gratitude  to  him,  and  the  cup 
of  blessing,  or  the  consecrated  cup. 

2d.  " 2vva£isf}}  a  coming  together,  because  the  sacrament  was 
administered  in  the  public  congregation. 

3d.  "Aeirovpyia,"  a  sacred  ministration,  applied  to  the  sacra- 
ment by  way  of  eminence.  From  this  wrord  is  derived  the 
English  word  liturgy. 

4th.  "&vdi<x,»  sacrifice  offering.  "This  term  was  not  applied 
to  the  sacrament  in  the  proper  sense  of  a  propitiatory  sacrifice. 
But  (1)  because  it  was  accompanied  with  a  collection  and  obla- 
tion of  alms;  (2)  because  it  commemorated  the  true  sacrifice 
of  Christ  on  the  cross ;  (3)  because  it  was  truly  a  eucharistical 
sacrifice  of  praise  and  thanksgiving,  Heb.  xiii.  15;  (4)  because, 
in  the  style  of  the  ancients,  every  religious  action,  whereby  we 
consecrate  any  thing  to  God  for  his  glory  and  our  salvation,  is 
called  a  sacrifice." 

5th.  ^AydiTCTj.  The  Agapse,  or  love  feasts,  were  meals  at 
which  all  the  communicants  assembled,  and  in  connection  with 
which  they  received  the  consecrated  elements.  Hence  the 
name  of  the  feast  was  given  to  the  sacrament  itself. 

6th.  Mv6rT/piov,  a  mystery,  or  a  symbolical  revelation  of 
truth,  designed  for  the  special  benefit  of  initiated  Christians. 
This  was  applied  to  both  sacraments.  In  the  Scriptures  it  is 
applied  to  all  the  doctrines  of  revelation. — Matt.  xiii.  11; 
Col.  i.  26. 

7th.  Missa,  mass.  The  principal  designation  used  by  the 
Latin  church.  The  most  probable  derivation  of  this  term  is 
from  the  ancient  formula  of  dismission.  When  the  sacred  rites 
were  finished  the  deacons  called  out,  "  Ite,  missa  est,"  go,  it  is 
discharged. — Turretin,  L.  19,  Q.  21. 

5.  How  is  this  sacrament  defined,  and  what  are  the  essential 
points  included  in  the  definition  ? 

See  "L.  Cat.,"  Q.  168;  "S.  Cat.,"  Q,  96. 


KINDS    OF  BREAD   AND    WINE    TO   BE    USED.  633 

The  essential  points  of  this  definition  are,  1st,  the  elements, 
bread  and  wine,  given  and  received  according  to  the  appoint 
ment  of  Jesus  Christ.  2d.  The  design  of  the  recipient  ol  doing 
this  in  obedience  to  Christ's  appointment,  in  remembrance  of 
him,  to  show  forth  his  death  till  he  come.  3d.  The  promised 
presence  of  Christ  in  the  sacrament  by  his  Spirit,  "  so  that  the 
worthy  receivers  are  not  after  a  corporeal  and  carnal  manner, 
but  by  faith,  made  partakers  of  Christ's  body  and  blood,  with 
all  his  benefits,  to  their  spiritual  nourishment  and  growth  in 
grace." 

6.  What  kind  of  bread  is  to  be  used  in  the  sacrament,  and  what 
is  the  usage  of  the  different  churches  on  this  point  ? 

Bread  of  some  kind  is  essential,  1st,  from  the  command  of 
Christ ;  2d,  from  the  significancy  of  the  symbol ;  since  bread, 
as  the  principal  natural  nourishment  of  our  bodies,  represents 
his  flesh,  which,  as  living  bread,  he  gave  for  the  life  of  the 
world. — John  vi.  51.  But  the  kind  of  bread,  whether  leavened 
or  unleavened,  is  not  specified  in  the  command,  nor  is  it  ren- 
dered essential  by  the  nature  of  the  service. 

Christ  used  unleavened  bread  because  it  was  present  at  the 
Passover.  The  early  Christians  celebrated  the  Communion  at 
a  common  meal,  with  the  bread  of  common  life,  which  was 
leavened.  The  Eomish  Church  has  used  unleavened  bread 
ever  since  the  eighth  century,  and  commands  the  use  of  the 
same  as  the  only  proper  kind,  but  does  not  make  it  essential 
("  Cat.  Cone.  Trident.,"  Pt.  2,  ch.  iv.,  §§  13  and  14).  The  Greek 
Church  insists  upon  the  use  of  leavened  bread.  The  Lutheran 
Church  uses  unleavened  bread.  The  Reformed  Church,  includ- 
ing the  Church  of  England,  regards  the  use  of  leavened  bread, 
as  the  food  of  common  life,  to  be  most  proper,  since  bread  in 
the  Supper  is  the  symbol  of  spiritual  nourishment.  The  use  of 
sweet  cake,  practiced  in  some  of  our  churches,  is  provincial 
and  arbitrary,  and  is  without  any  support  in  Scripture,  tradi- 
tion, or  good  taste. 

7.  What  is  the  meaning  of  the  term  oivos,  wine,  in  the  New 
Testament,  and  hoio  does  it  appear  that  tvine  and  no  other  liquid 
must  be  used  in  the  Lord's  Supper  ? 

It  is  evident  from  the  usage  of  this  word  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment that  it  was  designed  by  the  sacred  writers  to  designate 
the  fermented  juice  of  the  grape. — Matt.  ix.  17;  John  ii.  3-10; 
Rom.  xiv.  21;  Eph.  v.  18;  1  Tim.  iii.  8;  v.  23;  Titus  ii.  3. 

This  is  established  by  the  unanimous  testimony  of  all  com- 
petent scholars  and  missionary  residents  in  the  East  — See 
Dr.  Lindsay  W.  Alexander's  article  in  Kitto's  "Cyclopaedia"; 


634  THE    LORD'S    SUITER. 

and  Dr.  Wm.  L.  Beran's  art.  on  "Wine"  in  "Smith's  Bible 
Diet.";  and  Dr.  Ph.  Schaff  in  Lange's  "Com.  on  John,"  eh.  ii. 
1-11,  note  p.  Ill;  and  Rev.  Dr.  T.  Laurie,  missionary,  in  the 
"Bibliotheca  Sacra,"  Jan.,  1869;  and  Dr.  Justin  Perkins'  "Res- 
idence of  Eight  Years  in  Persia,"  p.  236;  and  Dr.  Eli  Smith  in 
the  "Bib.  Sacra,"  1846,  pp.  385,  etc.;  and  Rev.  J.  H.  Shedd 
(missionary),  in  "Interior,"  of  July  20,  1871. 

The  Romish  Church  contends,  on  the  authority  of  tradition, 
that  water  should  be  mingled  with  the  wine  ("  Cat.  Cone.  Tri- 
dent., Pt.  II.,  Ch.  iv.,  Ques.  16  and  17).  But  this  has  not  been 
commanded,  nor  is  it  involved  in  any  way  in  the  symbolical 
significancy  of  the  rite.  That  wine  and  no  other  liquid  is  to  be 
used  is  clear  from  the  record  of  the  institution,  Matt.  xxvi.  26-29, 
and  from  the  usage  of  the  apostles. 

8.  How  does  it  appear  that  breaking  the  bread  is  an  important 
part  of  the  service  ? 

1st.  The  example  of  Christ  in  the  act  of  institution,  which 
is  particularly  noticed  in  each  inspired  record  of  the  matter. 
Matt.  xxvi.  26 ;  Mark  xiv.  22 ;  Luke  xxii.  19 ;  1  Cor.  xi.  24. 

2d.  It  is  prominently  set  forth  in  the  reference  made  by 
the  apostles  to  the  sacrament  in  the  epistles. — 1  Cor.  x.  16. 
The  entire  service  is  designated  from  this  one  action. 

3d.  It  pertains  to  the  symbolical  significancy  of  the  sacra- 
ment. (1.)  It  represents  the  breaking  of  Christ's  body  for  us. 
1  Cor.  xi.  24.  (2.)  It  represents  the  communion  of  believers, 
being  many  in  one  body. — 1  Cor.  x.  17.  This  is  denied  by  the 
Lutheran  Church,  which  holds  that  the  "breaking "is  only  a 
preparation  for  distribution  (see  Krauth's  "  Conservative  Ref- 
ormation," pp.  719-722). 

9.  What  is  the  proper  interpretation  of  1  Cor.  x.  16,  and  in 
what  sense  are  tlve,  elements  to  be  blessed  or  consecrated  ? 

The  phrase  to  bless  is  used  in  Scripture  only  in  three  senses, 
1st.  To  bless  God,  i.  <?.,  to  declare  his  praises,  and  to  utter  our 
gratitude  to  him.  2d.  To  confer  blessing  actually,  as  God  does 
upon  his  creatures.  3d.  To  invoke  the  blessing  of  God  upon 
any  person  or  thing. 

The  "cup  of  blessing  which  we  bless"  is  the  consecrated 
cup  upon  which  the  minister  has  invoked  the  divine  blessing. 
As  the  blessing  of  God  is  invoked  upon  food,  and  it  is  thus 
consecrated  unto  the  end  of  its  natural  use,  1  Tim.  iv.  5,  so  the 
elements  are  set  apart  as  sacramental  signs  of  an  invisible  spir- 
itual grace,  to  the  end  of  showing  forth  Christ's  death,  and  of 
ministering  grace  to  the  believing  recipient,  by  the  invocation 


DISTRIBUTION   OF    THE    ELEMENTS   ESSENTIAL.       635 

by  the  minister  of  God's  blessing  in  the  promised  presence  of 
Christ  through  his  Spirit. 

The  Romish  Church  teaches  that  when  the  priest  pro- 
nounces the  words  of  consecration  with  the  due  intention, 
he  really  effects  the  transubstantiation  of  the  bread  and  wine 
into  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  The  form  to  be  used  in  the 
consecration  of  the  bread  is,  "This  is  my  body."  The  form  to 
be  used  in  consecrating  the  wine  is,  "  For  this  is  the  chalice  of 
my  blood,  of  the  new  and  eternal  testament,  the  mystery  of 
faith,  which  shall  be  shed  for  you  and  for  many  for  the  remis- 
sion of  sins"  ("Cat.  Cone.  Trident.,"  Pt.  II.,  Ch.  iv.,  Ques.  19-26). 

10.  Show  that  tJie  distribution  of  the  elements  to  tine  people  and 
their  reception  by  them  is  an  essential  part  of  this  sacrament  ? 

Since  the  Romish  Church  has  perfectly  developed  the  doc- 
trines of  transubstantiation,  and  of  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass, 
they  have  logically  come  to  regard  the  essential  design  of  the 
ordinance  to  be  effected  when  the  act  of  consecration  has  been 
performed,  and  hence  the  distribution  of  the  elements  to  the 
people  is  considered  non-essential.  Hence  they  preserve  the 
bread  as  the  veritable  body  of  the  Lord  shut  up  in  the  pyx, 
carry  it  about  in  processions  and  worship  it.  Hence  they  also 
maintain  the  right  of  the  priest  in  the  mass  to  communicate 
without  the  people,  and  to  carry  the  wafer  to  the  sick  who  are 
absent  from  the  place  of  communion. — "Cone.  Trident.,"  Sess. 
13,  Ch.  6,  and  cans.  4-7,  and  Sess.  22,  can.  8. 

Protestants,  on  the  contrary,  hold  that  it  is  of  the  essence  of 
this  holy  ordinance  that  it  is  an  action,  beginning  and  ending 
in  the  appointed  use  of  the  elements.  "  Take,  eat,'1  said  Christ. 
"  This  do  in  remembrance  of  me."  It  is  a  "  breaking  of  bread," 
an  "eating  and  drinking"  in  remembrance  of  Christ,  it  is  a 
"communion."  Protestants  all  hold,  consequently,  that  the 
distribution  and  reception  of  the  elements  are  essential  parts 
of  the  service,  and  that  when  these  are  accomplished  the  sac- 
rament ends.  The  Lutherans  hold  that  the  presence  of  the 
flesh  and  blood  of  Christ  in  the  sacrament  is  confined  to  the 
time  of  the  sacramental  use  of  the  elements,  that  is  to  the  time 
of  their  distribution  and  reception,  and  that  what  remains 
afterwards  is  common  bread  and  wine. — "  Form.  Concord.," 
Pt.  2,  Ch.  7,  82,  and  108;  "Conf.  Faith,"  Ch.  29,  §  4. 

The  Reformed  Church  holds  that  the  elements  should  be 
put  into  the  hands  of  the  communicant,  and  not  as  Catholics, 
into  his  mouth.  Christ  said,  "  take  eat,"  and  the  act  is  sym- 
bolical of  personal  self-appropriation. 

Since  this  sacrament  is  a  "communion"  (1  Cor.  x.  16,  17) 
of  the  members  with  one  another  and  with  Christ  together,  the 


636  THE    LORD'S    SUFFER. 

rite  is  abused  when  the  elements  are  sent  to  persons  absent 
from  the  company  among  whom  it  is  celebrated,  and  all  pri- 
vate communion  of  ministers  or  laymen  is  absurd.  In  case  of 
need  all  Reformed  Churches  allow  the  pastor  and  elders  to  go, 
with  as  many  Christian  friends  as  the  case  admits  of,  and  hold 
a  communion  in  the  chamber  of  sick  believers,  who  otherwise 
would  be  unable  to  attend  (Gen.  Assem.  0.  S.,  1863,  "  Moore's 
Digest.,"  p.  668). 

11.  What  should  be  the  nature  of  the  exercises  during  the  distri- 
butvm  of  the  elements  ? 

"The  Sacraments  are  seals  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace"  formed 
between  Christ  and  his  people,  and  in  the  Lord's  Supper  "  the 
worthy  receivers  really  and  truly  receive  and  apply  unto  them- 
selves Christ  crucified,"  each  believer  being  made  "a priest  unto 
God"  (1  Pet.  ii.  5;  Rev.  i.  6),  "having  liberty  to  enter  into  the 
holiest  by  the  blood  of  Jesus "  (Heb.  x.  19).  From  all  this  it 
necessarily  follows  that  in  this  sacrament  tlue  communicants  are 
to  act  immediately  in  their  covenanting  with  the  Lord. 

The  minister  ought  never,  therefore,  to  throw  the  commu- 
nicants into  a  passive  attitude  as  the  recipients  of  instructions 
or  exhortations.  All  such  didactic  and  hortatory  exercises 
being  assigned  to  the  "preparatory"  services,  and  to  the  ser- 
mon before  communion,  the  minister  should  confine  himself  to 
leading  the  communicants  in  the  act  of  communion  in  exercises  of 
direct  worship,  such  as  suitable  prayers  and  hymns.  And  all 
the  prayers  and  hymns  associated  with  this  holy  ordinance 
should  be  specifically  appropriate  to  it,  and  not  merely  of  a 
general  religious  character. 

The  Relation  of  the  Sign  and  the  Grace  Signified. 

12.  What  is  the  Romish  doctrine  on  this  subject?  And  how  is  it 
expressed  by  the  term  Transubstantiation? 

The  early  fathers  spoke  of  the  presence  of  Christ  in  the 
Supper  in  indefinite  language,  and  with  a  general  tendency  to 
exaggeration.  Their  metaphorical  language  tended  to  a  con- 
fusion between  the  symbols  of  religious  service  and  the  spir- 
itual ideas  represented.  As  the  ministry  came  to  be  regarded 
as  a  priesthood,  and  the  only  channels  of  grace  to  the  people, 
the  sacraments  were  more  and  more  exalted  into  the  necessary 
instruments  through  which  they  acted.  With  the  conception 
of  a  real  priesthood  necessarily  emerged  the  need  of  a  real  sac« 
rifice;  and  for  the  reality  of  the  sacrifice  the  real  presence  of 
a  divine  incarnate  victim  also  was  necessarily  provided. 


ROMISH  DOCTRINE    OF   TRANSUBSTANTIATION.        637 

The  doctrine  in  its  present  form  was  first  brought  out  ex- 
plicitly by  Paschasius  Radbert,  abbot  of  Corbet  (a.  d.  831).  It 
was  opposed  by  Ratramnus,  but  gradually  gained  ground.  The 
term  trans  ubstantiatio,  conversion  of  substance,  was  used  to  define 
it  in  the  first  instance  by  Hildebert  of  Tours  (11134).  It  was 
first  decreed  as  an  article  of  faith,  at  the  instance  of  Innocent 
III.,  by  the  fourth  "  Lateran  Council,"  a.  d.  1215. 

Their  doctrine  is  that  when  the  words  of  consecration  are 
pronounced  by  the  priest — 1st.  The  whole  substance  of  the 
bread  is  changed  into  the  very  body  of  Christ  which  was  born 
of  the  Virgin,  and  is  now  seated  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father 
in  heaven,  and  the  whole  substance  of  the  wine  is  changed  into 
the  blood  of  Christ.  2d.  That  as  in  his  theanthropic  person 
the  soul  is  inseparable  from  the  body,  and  the  divinity  from 
the  soul,  so  in  the  sacrament  the  soul  and  body  of  the  Re- 
deemer is  present  with  his  flesh  and  blood.  3d.  That  only  the 
species,  or  sensible  qualities  of  the  bread  and  wine  remain, 
accidentia  sine  subjecto,  and  that  the  substance  of  the  flesh  and 
blood  is  present  without  their  accidents.  4th.  This  conversion 
of  substance  is  permanent,  so  that  the  flesh  and  blood  remain 
permanently  and  are  to  be  preserved  and  adored  as  such.  They 
rest  their  doctrine  on  Scripture  {Hie  est  corpus  meum),  tradition, 
and  the  authority  of  councils. 

13.  On  ivhat  grounds  does  the  Romish  Church  ivithhold  tlie  use 
of  tJie  cup  from  aU  except  the  officiating  priest  ?  and  what  is  their 
doctrine  of  '  concomitance '  ? 

The  Early  Church  for  ages,  and  the  Greek  and  all  Protestant 
Churches  to  the  present  time,  follow  the  example  of  Christ  and 
his  apostles  in  distributing  among  all  communicants  both  the 
bread  and  the  wine,  usub  utraque forma."  The  Romish  Church 
however,  for  fear  that  some  portion  of  the  Lord's  person  might 
be  unintentionally  desecrated,  has  restricted  the  cup  to  the  offi- 
ciating minister  alone.  The  only  exception  allowed  is  when 
the  cardinals  receive  the  cup  from  the  pope  officiating  on  Holy 
Thursday.  The  Hussite  War  had  for  its  principal  object  the 
gaining  for  the  people  the  privilege  of  communicating  in  both 
kinds.  To  defend  their  custom  theologians  advanced  the  doc- 
trine that  the  whole  Christ  is  present  in  each  of  the  elements, 
to  which  Thomas  Aquinas  first  gave  the  name  concomitantia. 
The  body  includes  the  nerves,  sinews,  and  all  else  that  is  nec- 
essary to  a  complete  body;  and  as  the  blood  is  inseparable 
from  the  flesh,  and  the  soul  from  the  body,  and  the  divinity 
from  the  soul,  it  follows  that  the  entire  person  of  the  Redeemer 
is  present  in  each  particle  of  both  elements,  separation  having 
been  made.     He,  therefore,  who  receives  any  fraction  of  the 


638  THE   LORD'S  surPER. 

bread  receives  blood  as  well  as  flesh,  because  he  receives  the 
whole  Christ. 

14.  Present  the,  arguments  proving  tlve  Bomish  doctrine  of  the 
relation  of  the  sign  to  tJie  thing  signified  to  be  unscriptural  as  well 
as  irrational. 

1st.  The  sole  Scriptural  argument  of  the  Eomanists  is  derived 
from  the  words  of  institution,  "This  is  my  body"  (Matt.  xxvi. 
26Y  Protestants  answer.  This  phrase  in  this  place  must  mean, 
"this  bread  represents,  or  symbolizes,  my  body."  This  is  evi- 
dent—(1.)  Because  such  language  in  Scripture  must  often  be 
so  interpreted,  e.  g.,  Gen.  xli.  26,  27 — "The  seven  good  kine 
are  seven  years:  and  the  seven  good  ears  are  seven  years." 
Dan.  vii.  24 — "And  the  ten  horns  are  ten  kings."  Ex.  xii.  11 ; 
Ezek.  xxxvii.  11 — "These  bones  are  the  whole  house  of  Israel." 
Matt.  xiii.  19,  37;  Kev.  i.  20 — "The  seven  stars  are  the  angels 
of  the  seven  churches,  and  the  seven  candlesticks  are  the  seven 
churches."  (2.)  In  this  case  any  other  interpretation  is  ren- 
dered impossible  by  the  fact  that  Christ  was  sitting  present 
in  the  body  when  he  spoke  the  words,  and  that  he  also  eat  the 
bread.  (3.)  Also  by  what  Christ  says  of  the  cup.  Matt.,  "This 
cup  is  my  blood."  Luke,  "This  cup  is  the  New  Testament  in 
my  blood."  Paul  (1  Cor.  x.  16)  says  the  cup  is  the  uoivoovia  of 
the  blood,  and  the  bread  is  the  Kowcovia  of  the  body  of  Christ. 

2d.  Paul  calls  one  of  the  elements  bread,  as  well  after  as 
before  its  consecration. — 1  Cor.  x.  16;  xi.  26-28. 

3d.  This  doctrine  is  inconsistent  with  their  own  definition 
of  a  sacrament.  They  agree  with  Protestants  and  with  the 
fathers  in  distinguishing,  in  every  sacrament,  two  things,  viz., 
the  sign  and  the  thing  signified.  See  above,  Chap.  XLI.,  Ques- 
tion 2.  But  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  confounds  these 
together. 

4th.  The  senses,  when  exercised  in  their  proper  sphere,  are 
as  much  a  revelation  from  God  as  any  other.  No  miracle  re- 
corded in  the  Bible  contradicted  the  senses,  but,  on  the  con 
trary,  the  reality  of  the  miracle  was  established  by  the  testi- 
mony of  the  senses.  See  the  transubstantiation  of  water  into 
wine. — John  ii.  1-10,  and  Luke  xxiv.  36-43.  But  this  doctrine 
flatly  contradicts  our  senses,  since  we  see,  smell,  taste,  and 
touch  the  bread  and  wine  as  well  after  their  consecration  as 
before. 

5th.  Reason  also,  in  its  proper  sphere,  is  a  divine  revelation, 
and  though  it  may  be  transcended,  never  can  be  contradicted 
by  any  other  revelation,  supernatural  or  otherwise  See  above, 
Chap.  III.,  Question  14.  But  this  doctrine  contradicts  the  prin- 
ciples of  reason  (1)  with  respect  to  the  nature  of  Christ's  body 


LUTHERAN    VIEW   OF   THE   LORD'S   PRESENCE.        639 

Dy  supposing  that,  although  it  is  material,  it  may  be,  without 
division,  wholly  present  in  heaven,  and  at  many  different  places 
on  earth  at  the  same  time.  (2.)  In  maintaining  that  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ  are  present  in  the  sacrament,  yet  without 
any  of  their  sensible  qualities,  and  that  all  the  sensible  qualities 
of  the  bread  and  wine  are  present,  while  the  bodies  to  which 
they  belong  are  absent.  But  qualities  have  no  existence  apart 
from  the  substances  to  which  they  belong. 

6th.  This  doctrine  is  an  inseparable  part  of  a  system  of 

f)riestcraft  entirely  anti-Christian,  including  the  worship  of  the 
lost,  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass,  and  hence  the  entire  substitu- 
tion of  the  priest  and  his  work  in  the  place  of  Christ  and  his 
work.  It  also  blasphemously  subjects  the  awful  divinity  of 
our  Saviour  to  the  control  of  his  sinful  creatures,  who  at  their 
own  will  call  him  down  from  heaven,  and  withhold  or  commu- 
nicate him  to  the  people. 

15.  State  the  Lutheran  vieiv  as  to  tJw  nature  of  Christ's  pres- 
ence in  the  Eucharist. 

The  Lutherans  hold — 1st;  The  communicatio  idiomatum,  or 
that  the  personal  union  of  the  divine  and  human  natures 
involve  the  sharing  of  the  humanity  at  least  with  the  omnipres- 
ence of  the  divinity.  The  entire  person  of  the  incarnate  God, 
body,  soul,  and  divinity  are  everywhere.  2d.  That  the  lan- 
guage of  our  Lord  in  the  institution,  "This  (bread)  is  my 
body,"  is  to  be  understood  literally. 

They,  therefore,  hold — 1st.  That  the  entire  person,  body 
and  blood  of  Christ  are  really  and  corporeally  present  in,  with, 
and  under  the  sensible  elements.  2d.  That  they  are  received 
by  the  mouth.  3d.  That  they  are  received  by  the  unbeliever 
as  well  as  by  the  believer.  But  the  unbeliever  receives  them 
to  his  own  condemnation. 

On  the  other  hand  they  deny — 1st.  Transubstantiation ;  hold- 
ing that  the  bread  and  wine  remain  (as  to  their  substance)  what 
they  appear.  2d.  That  the  presence  of  Christ  in  the  sacrament 
is  effected  by  the  officiating  minister.  3d.  That  the  presence 
of  Christ  in  the  elements  is  permanent;  being  sacramental,  it 
ceases  when  the  sacrament  is  over.  4th.  That  the  bread  and 
wine  only  represent  Christ's  body  and  blood.  5th.  That  the 
presence  of  the  true  body  and  blood  is  "spiritual,"  in  the 
sense  of  being  mediated  either  (a)  through  the  Holy  Ghost,  oi 
(b)  through  the  faith  of  the  recipient. 

16.  State  the  doctrine  of  the  Reformed  Church. 

Luther's  activity  as  a  reformer  extended  from  1517  to  1546; 
Melanchthon's  from  1521  to  1560;  Zwingle's  from  his  appear- 


640  THE   LORD'S   SUPPER. 

ance  at  Zurich,  1518,  to  his  death,  1531;  Calvin's  from  1536  to 
1564.  The  Marburg  Colloquy  was  held  October,  1529;  the 
Augsburg  Confession  published  June,  1530;  and  the  first  edi- 
tion of  "  Calvin's  Institutes  "  was  published  at  Basle,  1536,  and 
the  finished  work  was  published  by  him  in  Geneva,  1559. 

I.  Zwingle  held  that  the  bread  and  wine  are  mere  memo- 
rials of  the  body  of  Christ  absent  in  heaven.  His  view  at  first 
prevailed  among  the  Reformed  churches,  and  was  embodied  in 
Zwingle's  "Fidei  Ratio,"  sent  to  the  diet  at  Augsburg,  1530; 
the  "Confessio  Tetrapolitana,"  by  Martin  Bucer,  1530;  the 
"First  Basle  Confession,"  by  Oswald  Myconius,  1532;  and  the 
"  First  Helvetic  Confession,"  by  Bullinger,  Myconius,  etc.,  1536. 

II.  Calvin  occupied  middle  ground  between  the  Zwinglians 
and  Lutherans.  He  held — (1.)  In  common  with  Zwingle  and 
all  the  Reformed  that  the  words  "This  is  my  body,"  means  "this 
bread  represents  my  body."  (2.)  That  God  in  this  sacrament 
offers  to  all,  and  gives  to  all  believing  recipients,  through  the 
eating  and  drinking  the  bread  and  wine,  all  the  sacrificial  ben- 
efits of  Christ's  redemption.  (3.)  He  also  taught  that  besides 
this  the  very  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  though  absent  in  heaven, 
communicate  a  life-giving  influence  to  the  believer  in  the  act 
of  receiving  the  elements.  But  that  this  influence  though  real 
and  vital  is  (a)  mystical  not  physical,  (b)  mediated  through  the 
Holy  Ghost,  (c)  conditioned  upon  the  act  of  faith  by  which  the 
communicant  receives  them.  This  view  is  set  forth  chiefly  in 
his  "  Institutes,"  Bk.  4,  Ch.  17,  and  in  the  "  Gallic  Confession," 
Art.  36,  prepared  by  a  Synod  in  Paris,  1559;  in  the  "Scottish 
Confession,"  Art.  21,  by  John  Knox,  1560;  and  the  "Belgic 
Confession,"  Art.  35,  by  Von  Bres,  1561. 

III.  After  all  hope  of  reconciling  the  Lutherans  with  the 
Reformed  branches  of  the  church  on  this  subject  was  exhausted, 
Calvin  drew  up  the  Consensus  Tigurinus  in  1549  for  the  purpose 
of  uniting  the  Zurich-Zwinglian  with  the  Genevan-Calvinistic 

Earty  in  one  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist.  It  was  accepted  by 
oth  parties,  and  the  doctrine  it  presents  has  ever  since  been 
received  as  the  consensus  of  the  Reformed  churches.  It  pre- 
vails in  the  "  Second  Helvetic  Confession,"  by  Bullinger,  1564 ; 
the  "  Heidelberg  Catechism,"  by  Ursinus,  a  student  of  Me- 
lanchthon,  1562;  the  "Thirty-nine  Articles  of  the  Church 
of  England,"  1562 ;  and  the  "  Westminster  Confession  of 
Faith,"  1648. 

These  all  agree — 1st.  As  to  the  "  presence  "  of  the  flesh  and 
blood  of  Christ.     (1.)  His  human  nature  is  in  heaven  only.  ; 
(2.)  His  Person  as  God-man  is  omnipresent  everywhere  and  t 
always,  our  communion  is  with  his  entire  person  rather  than 
with  his  flesh  and  blood  (see  above,  Ch.  XIII.,  Ques.  13  and  16) 


EFFICACY   OF    THIS   SACRAMENT.  641 

(3.)  The  presence  of  his  flesh  and  blood  in  the  sacrament  is 
neither  physical  nor  local,  but  only  through  the  Holy  Spirit, 
affecting  the  soul  graciously.  2d.  As  to  that  which  the  believer 
feeds  upon,  they  agreed  that  it  was  not  the  "substance"  but 
the  virtue  or  efficacy  of  his  body  and  blood,  i.  e.,  their  sacrificial 
virtue,  as  broken  and  shed  for  sin.  3d.  As  to  the  "  feeding  " 
of  believers  upon  this  "body  and  blood,"  they  agreed — (1.)  It 
was  not  with  the  mouth  in  any  manner.  (2.)  It  was  by  the 
soul  alone.  (3.)  It  was  by  faith,  the  mouth  or  hand  of  the  soul 
(4.)  By  or  through  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  (5.)  It  is  not 
confined  to  the  Lord's  Supper.  It  takes  place  whenever  faith 
in  him  is  exercised. — "  Bib.  Ref,"  April,  1848. 

The  Efficacy  of  this  Sacrament. 

17.  What  is  the  Romish  doctrine  as  to  tJie  efficacy  of  the  Eucha- 
rist, and  in  what  sense  and  on  what  ground  do  they  hold  that  it  is 
also  a  sacrifice  ? 

They  distinguish  between  the  eucharist  as  a  sacrament,  and 
as  a  sacrifice.  As  a  sacrament  its  effect  is  that  ex  opere  operate 
the  receiver  who  does  not  present  an  obstacle,  is  nourished 
spiritually,  sanctified  and  replenished  with  merit  by  the  actual 
substance  of  the  Redeemer  eaten  or  drunk. 

On  the  other  hand — "  The  sacrifice  of  the  mass  is  an  exter- 
nal oblation  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  offered  to  God  in 
recognition  of  his  supreme  Lordship,  under  the  appearance  of 
bread  and  wine  visibly  exhibited  by  a  legitimate  minister,  with 
the  addition  of  certain  prayers  and  ceremonies  prescribed  by 
the  church  for  the  greater  worship  of  God  and  edification  of 
the  people." — Dens,  Vol.  v.,  p.  358. 

With  respect  to  its  end  it  is  to  be  distinguished  into, 
1st,  Latreuticum,  or  an  act  of  supreme  worship  offered  to  God. 
2d.  Eucharisticum,  thanksgiving.  3d.  Propitiatorium,  atoning 
for  sin,  and  propitiating  God  by  the  offering  up  of  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ  again.  4th.  Imperatorium,  since  through 
it  we  attain  to  many  spiritual  and  temporal  blessings. — Dens, 
Vol.  v.,  p.  368. 

The  difference  between  the  eucharist  as  a  sacrament  and  a 
sacrifice  is  very  great,  and  is  twofold ;  as  a  sacrament  it  is  per- 
fected by  consecration,  as  a  sacrifice  all  its  efficacy  consists  in 
its  oblation.  As  a  sacrament  it  is  to  the  worthy  receiver  a 
source  of  merit,  as  a  sacrifice  it  is  not  only  a  source  of  merit, 
but  also  of  satisfaction,  expiating  the  sins  of  the  living  and  the 
dead.— "Cat.  Rom.,"  Pt.  II.,  Chap,  iv,  Q.  55;  " Council  Trent," 
Sess.  22. 


/ 


642  THE    LORD'S    SUPPER. 

They  found  this  doctrine  upon  the  authority  of  the  church, 
and  absurdly  appeal  to  Mai.  i.  11,  as  a  prophecy  of  this  perpet- 
ually recurrent  sacrifice,  and  to  the  declaration,  Heb.  vii.  17, 
that  Christ  is  "a  priest  forever,  after  the  order  of  Melchizedec," 
who,  say  they,  discharged  his  priestly  functions  in  offering 
bread  and  wine  to  Abraham. — Gen.  xiv.  18. 

18.  Hoio  may  this  doctrine  be  refuted  ? 

1st.  It  has  no  foundation  whatever  in  Scripture.  Their 
appeal  to  the  prophecy  in  Malachi,  and  to  the  typical  relation 
of  Melchizedec  to  Christ,  is  self-evidently  absurd. 

2d.  It  rests  wholly  upon  the  fiction  of  transubstantiation, 
which  was  disproved  above,  Question  14. 

3d.  The  sacrifice  of  Christ  on  the  cross  was  perfect,  and 
from  its  essential  nature  excludes  all  others. — Heb.  ix.  25-28; 
x.  10-14  and  18,  26,  27. 

4th.  It  is  inconsistent  with  the  words  of  institution  pro- 
nounced by  Christ. — Luke  xxii.  19,  and  1  Cor.  xi.  24-26.  The 
sacrament  commemorates  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  upon  the  cross, 
and  consequently  can  not  be  a  new  propitiatory  sacrifice  itself. 
For  the  same  reason  the  essence  of  a  sacrament  is  different 
from  that  of  a  sacrifice.  The  two  can  not  coexist  in  the  same 
ordinance. 

5th.  It  belonged  to  the  very  essence  of  all  propitiatory  sac- 
rifices, as  well  to  the  typical  sacrifices  of  the  Old  Testament,  as 
to  the  all-perfect  one  of  Christ,  that  life  should  be  taken,  that 
blood  should  be  shed,  since  it  consisted  in  vicariously  suffering 
the  penalty  of  the  law. — Heb.  ix.  22.  But  the  Papists  them- 
selves call  the  mass  a  bloodless  sacrifice,  and  it  is  wholly  with- 
out pain  or  death. 

6th.  A  sacrifice  implies  a  priest  to  present  it,  but  the  Chris- 
tian ministry  is  not  a  priesthood. — See  above,  Chap.  XXIV., 
Question  21. 

19.  What  is  the  LutJieran  view  as  to  the  efficacy  of  the  sac* 
rameni  ? 

The  Lutheran  view  on  this  point  is  that  the  efficacy  of  the 
sacrament  resides  not  in  the  signs,  but  in  the  word  of  God  con- 
nected with  them,  and  that  it  is  operative  only  when  there  is 
true  faith  in  the  receiver.  This  effect  is  identical  with  that  of 
the  word,  and  through  faith  includes  the  benefits  of  vital  com- 
munion with  Christ  and  all  the  fruits  thereof.  It,  however, 
lays  stress  upon  the  virtue  of  the  literal  body  and  blood  of 
Christ  as  present  in,  with,  and  under,  the  bread  and  wine. 
This  body  and   blood,   being  physically  received  equally  by 


EFFICACY   OF    THIS   SACRAMENT  643 

the  believer  and  unbeliever,  but  being  of  gracious  avail  only 
in  the  case  of  the  believer. —Luther's  "Small  Cat.,"  Part  V., 
Krauth's  "  Conserv.  Reform.,'  pp.  825-829. 

20.  What  is  the  so-called  Zwinglian  and  Remonstrant  and  So- 
cinian  view  as  to  the  efficacy  of  the  Eucharist  ? 

Zwingle  died  prematurely.  He  undoubtedly  took  too  low 
a  view  of  the  sacraments.  If  he  had  lived  he  would,  doubtless, 
have  accompanied  his  disciples  in  their  union  with  Calvin  in 
the  adoption  of  the  Consensus  Tiqurinus.  The  doctrine  ever 
since  known  by  his  name,  and  really  held  by  the  Socinians  and 
Remonstrants,  differs  from  the  Reformed — 1st.  In  making  the 
elements  mere  signs;  and  in  denying  that  Christ  is  in  any 
special  sense  present  in  the  eucharist.  2d.  In  denying  that 
they  are  means  of  grace,  and  holding  that  they  are  bare  acts 
of  commemoration  and  badges  of  profession. 

21.  Wlwi  is  the  vieio  of  the  Reformed  churches  upon  thin 
sulyject  ? 

They  rejected  the  Romish  view  which  regards  the  efficacy  of 
the  sacrament  as  inhering  in  it  physically  as  its  intrinsic  prop- 
erty, as  heat  inheres  in  fire.  They  rejected  also  the  Lutheran 
view  as  far  as  it  attributes  to  the  sacrament  an  inherent  super- 
natural power,  due  indeed  not  to  the  signs,  but  to  the  word 
of  God  which  accompanies  them,  but  which,  nevertheless,  is 
always  operative,  provided  there  be  faith  in  the  receiver.  And, 
thirdly,  they  rejected  the  doctrine  of  the  Socinians  and  others, 
that  the  sacrament  is  a  mere  badge  of  profession,  or  an  empty 
sign  of  Christ  and  his  benefits.  They  declared  it  to  be  an  effica- 
cious means  of  grace ;  but  its  efficacy,  as  such,  is  referred  neither 
to  any  virtue  in  it,  nor  in  him  that  administers  it,  but  solely 
to  the  attending  operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost  (virtus  Spiritus 
Sancti  extrinsecus  accedens),  precisely  as  in  the  case  of  the 
word.  It  has  indeed  the  moral  objective  power  of  a  signifi- 
cant emblem,  and  as  a  seal  it  really  conveys  to  every  believer 
the  grace  of  which  it  is  a  sign,  and  it  is  set  apart  with  especial 
solemnity  as  a  meeting  point  between  Christ  and  his  people; 
but  its  power  to  convey  grace  depends  entirely,  as  in  the  case 
of  the  word,  on  the  co-operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Hence  the 
power  is  in  no  way  tied  to  the  sacrament.  It  may  be  exerted 
without  it.  It  does  not  always  attend  it,  nor  is  it  confined 
to  the  time,  place,  or  service. — "Bib.  Ref,"  April,  1848;  see 
"Gal.  Conf.,"  Arts.  36  and  37;  "Helv,"  ii.,  c.  21;  "Scotch 
Conf.,"  Art.  21;  28th  and  29th  "Articles  of  Church  of  Eng. 
land";  also  our  own  standards,  "Conf.  Faith,"  Chapter  xxix* 
section  7. 


644  THE   LORD'S   SUPPER. 

22.  What  do  our  standards  teach  as  to  the  qualifications  fo* 
admission  to  the  Lords  Supper  ? 

1st.  Only  those  who  are  truly  regenerated  by  the  HoIt 
Ghost  are  qualified,  and  only  those  who  profess  faith  in  Christ 
and  walk  consistently  are  to  be  admitted. 

2d.  Wicked  and  ignorant  persons,  and  those  who  know 
themselves  not  to  be  regenerate,  are  not  qualified,  and  ought 
not  to  be  admitted  by  the  church  officers. — "  Conf.  Faith,"  CIl 
xxix.,  section  8;  "  L.  Cat.,"  Question  173. 

3d.  But  since  many  who  doubt  as  to  their  being  in  Christ 
are  nevertheless  genuine  Christians,  so  if  one  thus  doubting 
unfeignedly  desires  to  be  found  in  Christ,  and  to  depart  from 
iniquity,  he  ought  to  labor  to  have  his  doubts  resolved,  and,  so 
doing,  to  come  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  that  he  may  be  further 
strengthened. — "  L.  Cat.,"  Question  172. 

4th.  "  Children  born  within  the  pale  of  the  visible  church, 
and  dedicated  to  God  in  baptism,  when  they  come  to  years 
of  discretion,  if  they  be  free  from  scandal,  appear  sober  and 
steady,  and  to  have  sufficient  knowledge  to  discern  the  Lord's 
body,  they  ought  to  be  informed  it  is  their  duty  and  their 
privilege  to  come  to  the  Lord's  Supper."  "The  years  of  dis- 
cretion in  young  Christians  can  not  be  precisely  fixed.  This 
must  be  left  to  the  prudence  of  the  eldership." — "Direct,  for 
Worship,"  Chap.  ix. 

23.  What  is  the  practice  which  prevails  in  the  different  churches 
on  this  subject,  and  on  lohat  principles  does  such  practice  rest  ? 

1st.  The  Eomanists  make  the  condition  of  salvation  to  be 
union  with  and  obedience  to  the  church,  and,  consequently, 
admit  all  to  the  sacraments  who  express  their  desire  to  con- 
form and  obey.  "  No  one,"  however,  "  conscious  of  mortal  sin, 
and  having  an  opportunity  of  recurring  to  a  confessor,  however 
contrite  he  may  deem  himself,  is  to  approach  the  holy  eucha- 
rist,  until  he  is  purified  by  sacramental  confession." — "Coun. 
Trent,"  sess.  13,  canon  11.  The  Lutherans  agree  with  them  in 
admitting  all  who  conform  to  the  external  requirements  of  the 
church. 

2d.  High  Church  prelatists,  and  others  who  regard  the  sac- 
raments as  in  themselves  effective  means  of  grace,  maintain 
that  even  those  who,  knowing  themselves  to  be  destitute  of  the 
fruits  of  the  Spirit,  nevertheless  have  speculative  faith  in  the 
gospel,  and  are  free  from  scandal,  and  desire  to  come,  should 
be  admitted. 

3d.  The  faith  and  practice  of  all  the  evangelical  churches  ia 
that  the  communion  is  designed  only  for  believers,  and  there- 


QUALIFICATIONS   FOR    COMMUNION.  645 

fore,  that  a  credible  profession  of  faith  and  obedience  should  be 
required  of  every  applicant.  (1.)  The  Baptist  churches,  denying 
altogether  the  right  of  infant  church  membership,  receive  all 
applicants  for  the  communion  as  from  the  world,  and  therefore 
demand  positive  evidences  of  the  new  birth  of  all.  (2.)  All  the 
Pedobaptist  churches,  maintaining  that  all  children  baptized  in 
infancy  are  already  members  of  the  church,  distinguish  between 
the  admission  of  the  children  of  the  church  to  the  communion, 
and  the  admission  de  novo  to  the  church  of  the  unbaptized  alien 
from  the  world.  With  regard  to  the  former,  the  presumption 
is  that  they  should  come  to  the  Lord's  table  when  they  arrive 
at  "  years  of  discretion,  if  they  be  free  from  scandal,  appear  to 
be  sober  and  steady,  and  to  have  sufficient  knowledge  to  dis- 
cern the  Lord's  body."  In  the  case  of  the  unbaptized  world- 
ling, the  presumption  is  that  they  are  aliens  until  they  bring  a 
credible  profession  of  a  change. 

24.  How  may  it  be  proved  that  the  Lords  Supper  is  not  designed 
for  the  unrenewed  ? 

It  can,  of  course,  be  designed  only  for  those  who  are  spirit- 
ually qualified  to  do  in  reality  what  every  recipient  of  the  sac- 
rament does  in  form  and  professedly.  But  this  ordinance  ia 
essentially — 

1st.  A  profession  of  Christ. 

2d.  A  solemn  covenant  to  accept  Christ  and  his  gospel,  and 
to  fulfil  the  conditions  of  discipleship. 

3d.  An  act  of  spiritual  communion  with  Christ. 

The  qualifications  for  acceptable  communion,  therefore,  are 
such  knowledge,  and  such  a  spiritual  condition,  as  shall  enable 
the  recipient  intelligently  and  honestly  to  discern  in  the  em- 
blems the  Lord's  body  as  sacrificed  for  sin,  to  contract  with 
him  the  gospel  covenant,  and  to  hold  fellowship  with  him 
through  the  Spirit. 

25.  What  have  the  church  and  its  officers  a  right  to  require  of 
those  whom  they  admit  to  the  Lord's  Supper  ? 

"The  officers  of  the  church  are  the  judges  of  the  qualifica- 
tions of  those  to  be  admitted  to  sealing  ordinances.'  "And 
those  so  admitted  shall  be  examined  as  to  their  knowledge 
and  piety." — "Direct,  for  Worsh.,"  Chap.  ix.  As  God  has  not 
endowed  any  of  these  officers  with  the  power  of  reading  the 
heart,  it  follows  that  the  qualifications  of  which  they  are  the 
judges  are  simply  those  of  competent  knoAvledge,  purity  of  life, 
and  credible  profession  of  faith.  [By  "credible"  is  meant  not 
that  which  convinces,  but  that  which  can  be  believed  to  be 
genuine.]     It  is  their  duty  to  examine   the  applicant  as  to 


646  THE    LORD'S    SUPPER. 

his  knowledge,  to  watch  and  inquire  concerning  his  walk  and 
conversation,  to  set  before  him  faithfully  the  inward  spiritual 
qualifications  requisite  for  acceptable  communion,  and  to  hear 
his  profession  of  that  spiritual  faith  and  purpose.  The  respon- 
sibility of  the  act  then  rests  upon  the  individual  professor,  and 
not  upon  the  session,  who  are  never  to  be  understood  as  passing 
judgment  upon,  or  as  indorsing  the  validity  of  his  evidences. 

26.  What  is  the  difference  between  tlve  Presbyterian  and  the 
Congregational  churches  upon  this  point? 

There  exists  a  difference  between  the  traditionary  views 
and  practice  of  these  two  bodies  of  Christians  with  respect  to 
the  ability,  the  right,  and  the  duty  of  church  officers,  of  form- 
ing and  affirming  a  positive  official  judgment  upon  the  in- 
ward spiritual  character  of  applicants  for  church  privileges. 
The  Congregationalists  understand  by  "credible  profession" 
the  positive  evidence  of  a  religious  experience  which  satisfies 
the  official  judges  of  the  gracious  state  of  the  applicant.  The 
Presbyterians  understand  by  that  phrase  only  an  intelligent 
profession  of  true  spiritual  faith  in  Christ,  which  is  not  contra- 
dicted by  the  life. 

Dr.  Candlish,  in  the  "Edinburgh  Witness,"  June  8th,  1848, 
says,  "The  principle  (of  communion),  as  it  is  notorious  that  the 
Presbyterian  church  has  always  held  it,  does  not  constitute 
the  pastor,  elders,  or  congregation,  judges  of  the  actual  con- 
version of  the  applicant;  but,  on  the  contrary,  lays  much  re- 
sponsibility upon  the  applicant  himself.  The  minister  and  kirk 
session  must  be  satisfied  as  to  his  competent  knowledge,  cred- 
ible profession,  and  consistent  walk.  They  must  determine 
negatively  that  there  is  no  reason  for  pronouncing  him  not 
to  be  a  Christian,  but  they  do  not  undertake  the  responsibility 
of  positively  judging  of  his  conversion.  This  is  the  Presbyte- 
rian rule  of  discipline,  be  it  right  or  wrong,  differing  materially 
from  that  of  the  Congregationalists.  In  practice  there  is  room 
for  much  dealing  with  the  conscience  under  either  rule,  and 
persons  destitute  of  knowledge  and  of  a  credible  profession  are 
excluded." 

Authoritative  Statements  op  Church  Doctrine. 

Romish  Doctrine. — Doctrine  of  the  Eucharist  both  as  a  Sacra- 
ment and  as  a  Sacrifice. 

"Cone.  Trident. ,"  Sess.  13,  can.  1. — "If  any  one  denieth,  that,  in  the 
sacrament  of  the  most  holy  Eucharist,  are  contained  truly,  really,  and 
substantially,  the  body  and  blood  together  with  the  soid  and  divinity  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  consequently  the  whole  Christ ;  but  saith 
that  he  is  only  therein  as  in  a  sign,  or  in  figure,  or  virtue;  let  him  be 
anathema." 


AUTHORITATIVE    STATEMENTS    OF  DOCTRINE.         647 

Can.  2. — "If  any  one  saith,  that,  in  the  sacred  and  holy  sacrament  of 
the  Eucharist,  the  substance  of  the  bread  and  wiue  remains  conjointly 
with  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  denieth  that 
wonderful  and  singular  conversion  of  the  whole  substance  of  the  bread 
into  the  body,  and  the  whole  substance  of  the  wine  into  the  blood — 
the  species  (accidents)  of  the  bread  and  wine  remaining — which  conver- 
sion indeed  the  Catholic  Church  most  aptly  calls  Transubstantiation;  let 
him  be  anathema. " 

Can.  3. — "If  any  one  denieth,  that,  in  the  venerable  sacrament  of 
the  Eucharist,  the  whole  Christ  is  contained  under  each  speeies,  and 
under  every  part  of  each  species,  when  separation  has  been  made;  let 
him  be  anathema." 

Can.  4. — "If  any  one  saith,  that,  after  the  consecration  has  been 
completed,  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  are  not  in  the 
admirable  sacrament  of  the  Eucharist,  but  (are  there)  only  during  the 
use,  whilst  it  is  being  taken,  and  not  either  before  or  after;  and  that  in 
the  host,  or  consecrated  particles,  which  are  received  or  remain  after 
communion,  the  true  body  remaineth  not;  let  him  be  anathema." 

Can.  6. — "If  any  one  saith,  that,  in  the  holy  sacrament  of  the  Eucha- 
rist, Christ,  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God,  is  not  to  be  adored  with  the 
worship,  even  external,  of  latria;  and  is,  consequently,  neither  to  be 
venerated  with  special  festive  solemnity,  nor  to  be  solemnly  borne  about 
in  processions,  according  to  the  laudable  and  universal  rite  and  custom 
of  holy  church;  or,  is  not  to  be  exposed  publicly  to  the  people  to  be 
adored,  and  that  the  adorers  thereof  are  idolaters;  let  him  be  anathema." 

Can.  7. — "If  any  one  shall  say  that  it  is  not  lawful  for  the  sacred 
Eucharist  to  be  reserved  in  the  sacrarium,  but  that  immediately  after 
consecration,  it  must  necessarily  be  distributed  amongst  those  present; 
or,  that  it  is  not  lawful  that  it  be  carried  with  honor  to  the  sick;  let  him 
be  anathema." 

Can.  8. — "If  any  one  saith  that  Christ,  given  in  the  Eucharist,  is 
eaten  spiritually  only,  and  not  also  sacramen tally  and  really;  let  him  be 
anathema." 

Can.  10. — "If  any  one  saith,  that  it  is  not  lawful  for  the  celebrating 
priest  to  communicate  by  himself;  let  him  be  anathema." 

Sess.  21,  Can.  1. — "If  any  one  saith,  that,  by  the  precept  of  God,  or 
by  necessity  of  salvation,  all  and  each  of  the  faithful  of  Christ  ought  to 
receive  both  species  of  the  most  holy  sacrament  of  the  Eucharist;  let  him 
be  anathema." 

Can.  2. — "If  any  one  saith  that  the  holy  Catholic  Church  was  not 
induced,  by  just  causes  and  reasons,  to  communicate  under  the  species 
of  bread  only,  laymen  and  also  clerics  when  not  consecrating;  let  him  be 
anathema. " 

Can.  3. — "  If  any  one  denieth  that  Christ  whole  and  entire — the  foun- 
tain and  author  of  all  graces — is  received  under  the  one  species  of  bread, 
because  that — as  some  falsely  assert — he  is  not  received  according  to  the 
institution  of  Christ  himself  under  both  species;  let  him  be  anathema." 

Sess.  22,  Can.  1. — "If  any  one  saith,  that  in  the  mass,  a  true  and 
proper  sacrifice  is  not  made  to  God;  or,  that  to  be  offered  is  nothing  else 
but  that  Christ  is  given  us  to  eat;  let  him  be  anathema." 

Can.  2. — "If  any  one  saith,  that  by  those  words,  Do  this  for  the  com- 
memoration of  me  (Luke  xxii.  19),  Christ  did  not  institute  the  apostles 
priests;  or  did  not  ordain  that  they  and  other  priests  should  offer  his 
own  body  and  blood;  let  him  be  anathema." 

Can.  3. — "If  any  one  saith  that  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass  is  only  a 


648  THE   LORD'S    SUPPER. 

sacrifice  of  praise  and  of  thanksgiving;  or,  that  it  is  a  bare  commemora- 
tion of  the  sacrifice  consummated  on  the  cross,  but  not  a  propitiatory 
sacrifice;  or,  that  it  profits  him  only  that  receives;  and  that  it  ought  not 
to  be  offered  for  the  living  and  for  the  dead,  for  sins,  pains,  satisfactions, 
and  other  necessities;  let  him  be  anathema." 

Can.  8. — "If  any  one  saith,  that  masses,  wherein  the  priest  alone 
communicates  sacramentally,  are  unlawful    .     .     let  him  be  anathema." 

Chap.  2. — "Forasmuch  as  in  this  divine  sacrifice  which  is  celebrated 
in  the  mass,  that  same  Christ  is  contained  and  immolated  in  an  unbloody 
manner,  who  once  offered  himself  in  a  bloody  manner  on  the  altar  of  the 
cross  .  .  .  therefor,  not  only  for  the  sins,  punishments,  satisfactions, 
and  other  necessities  of  the  faithful  who  are  living,  but  also  for  those 
who  are  departed  in  Christ,  and  who  are  not  as  yet  fully  purified,  is  it 
rightly  offered  agreeably  to  a  tradition  of  the  apostles. " 

Bellarmin,  "  Controv.  de  Euchar.,"  v.  5. — "The  sacrifice  of  the  mass 
has  not  an  efficacy  ex  opere  operate  after  the  manner  of  a  sacrament.  The 
sacrifice  does  not  operate  efficiently  and  immediately,  nor  is  it  properly 
the  instrument  of  God  for  making  just.  It  does  not  make  just  imme- 
diately as  baptism  and  absolution  do,  but  it  impetrates  the  gift  of  peni- 
tence, through  which  a  sinner  is  made  willing  to  approach  the  sacrament, 
and  by  this  be  justified.  .  .  The  sacrifice  of  the  mass  is  the  procurer 
not  only  of  spiritual  but  also  of  temporal  benefits,  and  therefore  it  can 
be  offered  for  sins,  for  punishments,  and  for  any  other  necessary  uses. " 

LUTHEEAN   DOCTBINE. 

"Augsburg  Confession,"  Pars  1,  Art.  10;  " Apol.  Augs.  Conf."  p.  157 
(Hase) ;  "Formula  Concordice,"  Pars  1,  ch.  7,  \  1. — "We  believe,  teach, 
and  profess  that  in  the  Lord's  Supper  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are 
truly  and  substantially  present,  and  that  together  with  the  bread  and 
wine  they  are  truly  distributed  and  received.  \  2. — The  words  of  Christ 
(this  is  my  body)  are  to  be  understood  only  in  their  strictly  literal  sense; 
so  that  neither  the  bread  signifies  the  absent  body  of  Christ,  nor  the 
wine  the  absent  blood  of  Christ,  but  so  that  on  account  of  the  sacra- 
mental union  the  bread  and  wine  truly  are  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ. 
\  3. — As  to  what  pertains  to  the  consecration  we  believe,  etc.,  that  nc 
human  act,  nor  any  utterance  of  the  minister  of  the  church,  is  the  cause 
of  the  presence  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  in  the  Supper,  but  that 
this  is  to  be  attributed  solely  to  the  omnipotent  power  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  §  5. — The  grounds,  however,  on  which,  in  this  matter,  we  con- 
tend against  the  Sacramentarians,  are  these.  .  .  The  first  ground  is 
an  article  of  our  Christian  faith,  namely,  Jesus  Christ  is  true,  essential, 
natural,  perfect  God  and  man,  in  unity  of  person  inseparable  and  undi- 
vided. The  second  is  that  the  right  hand  of  God  is  everywhere;  but 
there  Christ  has,  truly  and  in  very  deed,  been  placed,  in  respect  to  his 
humanity,  and  therefore  being  present  he  rules,  and  holds  in  his  hands 
and  under  his  feet  all  things  which  are  in  heaven  and  on  earth.  The 
third  is  that  the  word  of  God  can  not  be  false.  The  fourth  is  that  God 
knows  and  has  in  his  power  various  modes  in  which  it  is  possible  to  be 
in  a  place  (present),  and  he  was  not  restricted  to  that  single  mode  of 
presence  which  philosophers  have  been  accustomed  to  call  local  or  cir- 
cumscribed. I  6. — We  believe,  etc.,  that  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ 
are  received  not  only  spiritually  through  faith,  but  also  by  the  mouth, 
not  after  a  capernaitish,  but  a  supernatural  and  celestial  manner,  by 
virtue  of  a  sacramental  union.  .  .  g  7. — We  believe,  etc.,  that  not 
only  those  who  believe  in  Christ,  and  worthily  approach  the  Lord's 
Supper,  but  also  the  unworthy  and  unbelievers  receive  the  true  body 


AUTHORITATIVE    STATEMENTS    OF  DOCTRINE.         049 

and  blood  of  Christ,  so  that,  however,  they  shall  not  thence  derive  either 
consolation  or  life,  but  rather  that  this  receiving  shall  fall  out  to  judg- 
ment to  them,  unless  they  be  converted  and  exercise  repentance." 

Doctrine  of  the  Reformed  Churches. 

"  Gallic  Con/.,"  Art.  36. — "Although  Christ  is  now  in  heaven,  there 
also  to  remain  till  he  shall  come  to  judge  the  world,  yet  we  believe  that 
he,  by  the  hidden  and  incomprehensible  power  of  his  Spirit,  nourishes 
and  vivifies  us  with  the  substance  of  his  body  and  blood,  apprehended 
by  faith." 

"Scottish  Conf." — "And  although  there  is  great  distance  of  place  be- 
tween his  now  glorified  body  in  heaven  and  us  mortals  now  upon  the 
earth,  yet  we  nevertheless  believe  that  the  bread  which  we  break  is  the 
communion  of  his  body,  and  the  cup  which  we  bless  is  the  communion 
of  his  blood.  .  .  So  we  confess  that  believers  in  the  right  use  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  do  thus  eat  the  body  and  drink  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ; 
and  we  surely  believe  that  he  remains  in  them  and  they  in  him,  yea, 
so  become  flesh  of  his  flesh  and  bone  of  his  bones,  that  as  the  eternal 
divinity  gives  life  and  immortality  to  the  flesh  of  Jesus  Christ,  so  also, 
his  flesh  and  blood,  when  eaten  and  drunk  by  us,  confer  on  us  the  same 
privileges." 

"Belgic  Con/.,"  Art.  35. 

Calvin's  "Institutes,"  Bk.  iv.,  Ch.  17,  \  10.— "The  sum  is,  that  the 
flesh  and  blood  of  Christ  feed  our  souls  just  as  bread  and  wine  maintain 
and  support  our  corporeal  life.  .  .  But  though  it  seems  an  incredible 
thing  that  the  flesh  and  blood  of  Christ,  while  at  such  a  distance  from  us 
in  respect  of  place,  should  be  food  to  us,  let  us  remember  how  far  the 
secret  virtue  of  the  Holy  Spirit  surpasses  all  our  conceptions,  and  how 
foolish  it  is  to  measure  its  immensity  by  our  feeble  capacity.  Therefore 
what  our  mind  does  not  comprehend,  let  faith  conceive;  viz.,  that  the 
Spirit  truly  unites  things  separated  by  space.  That  sacred  communion 
of  flesh  and  blood  whereby  Christ  transfuses  his  life  into  us,  just  as  if  it 
penetrated  our  bones  and  marrow,  he  testifies  and  seals  in  his  supper, 
and  that  not  by  presenting  a  vain  or  empty  sign,  but  by  there  exerting 
an  efficacy  of  the  Spirit  by  which  he  fulfils  what  he  promises.  And 
truly  the  thing  there  signified  he  exhibits  and  offers  to  all  who  sit  down 
at  that  spiritual  feast,  although  it  is  beneficially  received  by  believers 
only." 

"TJiirty-nine  Articles,"  Art.  28. — "The  Supper  of  the  Lord  is  a  sacra- 
ment of  the  redemption  by  Christ's  death:  insomuch  that  to  such  as 
rightly,  worthily,  and  with  faith  receive  the  same,  the  bread  which  we 
break  is  a  partaking  of  the  body  of  Christ,  and  likewise  the  cup  of  bless- 
ing is  a  partaking  of  the  blood  of  Christ.  .  .  The  body  of  Christ  is 
given,  taken,  and  eaten  in  the  Supper  only  after  an  heavenly  and  spir- 
itual manner.  And  the  mean  whereby  the  body  of  Christ  is  received 
and  eaten  in  the  Supper  is  faith.  The  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per was  not  by  Christ's  ordinance  reserved,  carried  about,  lifted  up,  or 
worshipped." 

"Heidelberg  Cat."  Ques.  76. — "What  is  it  to  eat  the  crucified  body 
of  Christ  and  to  drink  his  shed  blood?  It  means,  not  only  with  thankful 
hearts  to  appropriate  the  passion  of  Christ,  and  thereby  receive  forgive- 
ness of  sins  and  eterual  life,  but  also  and  therein,  through  the  Holy 
Ghost  who  dwelleth  in  Christ  and  in  us,  to  be  more  and  more  united 
to  his  blessed  body,  so  that,  although  he  is  in  heaven,  and  we  are  upon 
earth,  we  nevertheless  are  flesh  of  his  flesh,  and  bone  of  his  bones,  and 
live  forever  one  spirit  with  him." 


650  THE    LORD'S    SUPPER. 

"West.  Con/.  Faith,"  Ch.  29,  \  5.— "The  outward  elements  in  this 
sacrament,  duly  set  apart  to  the  uses  ordained  by  Christ,  have  such  a 
relation  to  him  crucified,  as  that  truly,  yet  sacramentally  only,  they  are 
sometimes  called  by  the  names  of  the  things  they  represent,  to  wit,  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ,  albeit  in  substance  and  nature  they  still  remain 
truly  and  only  bread  and  wine.  §  7. — Worthy  receivers,  outwardly  par- 
taking of  the  visible  elements  in  this  sacrament,  do  then  also  inwardly 
by  faith,  really  and  indeed,  but  not  carnally  and  corporeally,  but  spir- 
itually receive  and  feed  upon  Christ  crucified  and  all  the  benefits  of  his 
death :  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  being  then  not  corporeally  or  car- 
nally in,  with,  or  under  the  bread  and  wine;  yet  as  really  but  spiritually 
present  to  the  faith  of  believers  in  that  ordinance,  as  the  elements  them- 
selves are  to  the  outward  senses." — See  "Consensus  Tigurinus,"  in 
Appendix. 


APPENDIX. 


THE  CONSENSUS  TIGURINUS 

AND 

THE   FORMULA  CONSENSUS  HELVETICA. 


I. 

THE  CONSENSUS  TIGURINUS. 

♦TRITTEN    BY    CALVIN,    1549,     FOR    THE     PURPOSE    OF    UNITING    ALL 

BRANCHES    OF    THE    REFORMED    CHURCH    IN    A    COMMON 

DOCTRINE    AS    TO    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER. 


HEADS  OF  CONSENT. 

Tlie  whole  Spiritual  regimen  of  the  Church  leads  us  to  Christ. 

I.  Since  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  Law,  and  the  knowledge  of  Him 
comprehends  in  itself  the  entire  sum  of  the  Gospel,  there  is  no  doubt 
but  that  the  whole  spiritual  regimen  of  the  Church  is  designed  to  lead 
us  to  Christ;  as  through  Him  alone  we  reach  God,  who  is  the  ultimate 
end  of  a  blessed  (holy)  life;  and  so  whoever  departs  in  the  least  from 
this  truth  will  never  speak  rightly  or  fitly  respecting  any  of  the  ordi- 
nances of  God. 

A  true  knowledge  of  the  Sacraments  from  a  knowledge  of  Clirist. 

II.  Moreover  since  the  Sacraments  are  aiixiliaries  (appendices)  of  the 
Gospel,  he  certainly  will  discuss  both  aptly  and  usefully  their  nature, 
their  power,  their  office  and  their  fruit,  who  weaves  his  discourse  from 
Christ;  not  merely  touching  the  name  of  Christ  incidentally,  but  truth- 
fully holding  forth  the  purpose  for  which  He  was  given  to  us  by  the 
Father,  and  the  benefits  which  He  has  conferred  upon  us. 

Knowledge  of  Christ,  what  it  involves. 

m.  Accordingly  it  must  be  held,  that  Christ,  being  the  eternal  Son 
of  God,  of  the  same  essence  and  glory  with  the  Father,  put  on  our  flesh 
in  order  that,  by  right  of  adoption,  He  might  communicate  to  us  what 
by  nature  was  solely  His  own,  to  wit,  that  we  should  be  sons  of  God. 
This  takes  place  when  we,  ingrafted  through  faith  into  the  body  of 
Christ,  and  this  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  are  first  justified  by 
the  gratuitous  imputation  of  righteousness,  and  then  regenerated  into  a 
new  life,  that,  new-created  in  the  image  of  the  Heavenly  Father,  we  may 
put  off  the  old  man. 


652  APPENDIX. 

Christ,  Priest  and  King. 

IV.  We  must  therefore  regard  Christ  in  His  flesh  as  a  Pries:,  who  has 
expiated  our  sins  by  His  death,  the  only  Sacrifice,  blotted  out  all  our 
iniquities  by  His  obedience,  procured  for  us  a  perfect  righteousness, 
and  now  intercedes  for  us  that  we  may  have  access  to  God;  as  an  expia- 
tory Sacrifice  whereby  God  was  reconciled  to  the  world;  as  a  BroOier, 
who  from  wretched  sons  of  Adam  has  made  us  blessed  sons  of  God;  as  a 
Restorer  (Separator),  who  by  the  power  of  His  Spirit  transforms  all  that 
is  corrupt  (vitiosum)  in  us,  that  we  may  no  longer  live  unto  the  world 
and  the  flesh,  and  God  himself  may  live  in  us;  as  a  King,  who  enriches 
us  with  every  kind  of  good,  governs  and  preserves  us  by  His  power, 
establishes  us  with  spiritual  arms,  delivers  us  from  every  evil,  and  re- 
strains and  directs  us  by  the  sceptre  of  His  mouth;  and  He  is  to  be  so 
regarded,  that  He  may  lift  us  up  to  Himself,  very  God,  and  to  the 
Father,  until  that  shall  be  fulfilled  which  is  to  be  at  last,  that  God  bo 
all  in  all. 

How  Clirist  communicates  Himself  to  us. 

V.  Moreover  in  order  that  Christ  may  manifest  Himself  such  a  one 
to  us  and  produce  such  effects  in  us,  it  behooves  us  to  be  made  one  with 
Him  and  grow  together  in  His  body.  For  He  diffuses  His  life  in  us  in 
no  other  way  than  by  being  our  Head;  "from  whom  the  whole  body 
fitly  joined  together,  and  compacted  by  that  which  every  joint  supplieth, 
according  to  the  effectual  working  in  the  measure  of  every  part,  maketh 
increase  of  the  body  "  (Eph.  iv.  16). 

Communion  spiritual.     Sacraments  instituted. 

VI.  This  communion  which  we  have  with  the  Son  of  God,  is  spiritual; 
so  that  He,  dwelling  in  us  by  His  Spirit,  makes  all  of  us  who  believe 
partakers  of  all  the  good  that  resides  in  Him.  To  bear  witness  of  this, 
both  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  and  the  use  of  the  Sacraments,  Holy 
Baptism  and  the  Holy  Supper  were  instituted. 

Tlie  Ends  of  the  Sacraments. 

Vii.  The  Sacraments,  however,  have  also  these  ends: — to  be  marks 
and  tokens  of  Christian  profession  and  (Christian)  association,  or  broth- 
erhood; to  incite  gratitude  (thanksgiving),  and  to  be  exercises  of  faith 
and  a  pious  life,  in  short,  bonds  (sealed  contracts)  making  these  things 
obligatory.  But  among  other  ends  this  one  is  chief,  that  by  these 
Sacraments  God  attests,  presents  anew,  and  seals  to  us  His  grace.  For 
while  they  indeed  signify  nothing  more  than  is  declared  in  the  word  it- 
self, yet  it  is  no  small  matter  that  they  are  presented  to  our  eyes  as  lively 
symbols  which  better  affect  our  feeling,  leading  us  to  the  reality  [in  rem), 
while  they  recall  to  memory  Christ's  death  and  all  the  benefits  thereof, 
in  order  that  faith  may  have  more  vigorous  exercise;  and  finally,  it  is  of 
no  little  moment  that  what  was  proclaimed  to  us  by  the  mouth  of  God, 
is  confirmed  and  sanctioned  by  seals. 

Thanksgiving. 

Viil.  Moreover,  since  the  testimonials  and  seals  of  His  grace,  which 
the  Lord  has  given  us,  are  verities,  surely  He  himself  will  beyond  all 
doubt  make  good  to  us  inwardly,  by  His  Spirit,  what  the  Sacraments 
symbolize  to  our  eyes  and  other  senses,  viz.,  possession  of  Christ  as  the 


CONSENSUS    TIGURiNUS.  653 

fountain  of  all  blessings,  then  reconciliation  to  God  by  virtue  of  Hia 
death,  restoration  by  the  Spirit  unto  holiness  of  life,  and  finally  attain- 
ment of  righteousness  and  salvation;  accompanied  with  thanksgiving  foi 
these  mercies,  which  were  formerly  displayed  on  the  cross,  and  through 
faith  are  daily  received  by  us. 

Tlie  signs  and  the  things  signified  are  not  separated,  but  distinct. 

IX.  Wherefore,  though  we  rightly  make  a  distinction  between  the 
signs  and  the  things  signified,  yet  we  do  not  separate  the  verity  from  the 
signs;  but  we  believe,  that  all  who  by  faith  embrace  the  promises  therein 
offered,  do  spiritually  receive  Christ  and  His  spiritual  gifts,  and  so  also 
they  who  have  before  been  made  partakers  of  Christ,  do  continue  and 
renew  their  communion. 

In  the  Sacraments  the  promise  is  chiefly  to  be  kept  in  view. 

X.  For  not  to  the  bare  signs,  but  rather  to  the  promise  which  is 
annexed  to  them,  it  becomes  us  to  look.  As  far  then  as  our  faith  ad- 
vances in  the  promise  offered  in  the  Sacraments,  so  far  will  this  power 
and  efficacy  of  which  we  speak  exert  itself.  Accordingly  the  matter 
(materia)  of  the  water,  bread  or  wine,  by  no  means  present  Christ  to  us, 
nor  makes  us  partakers  of  His  spiritual  gifts;  but  we  must  look  rather  to 
the  promise,  whose  office  it  is  to  lead  us  to  Christ  by  the  right  way  of 
faith,  and  this  faith  makes  us  partakers  of  Christ. 

The  Elements  are  not  to  be  superstitiously  worshipped. 

XI.  Hence  the  error  of  those  who  superstitiously  worship  (obstupe- 
sctcnl)  the  elements,  and  rest  therein  the  assurance  of  their  salvation,  falls 
to  the  ground.  For  the  Sacraments  apart  from  Christ  are  nothing  but 
empty  masks;  and  they  themselves  clearly  declare  to  all  this  truth,  that 
we  must  cling  to  nothing  else  but  Christ  alone,  and  in  nothing  else  muat 
the  free  gift  of  salvation  be  sought. 

Tlie  Sacraments  (per  se)  have  no  efficacy. 

XH.  Furthermore,  if  any  benefit  is  conferred  upon  us  by  the  Sacra- 
ments, this  does  not  proceed  from  any  virtue  of  their  own,  even  though 
the  promise  whereby  they  are  distinguished  be  included.  For  it  is  God 
alone  who  works  by  His  Spirit.  And  in  using  the  instrumentality  of  the 
Sacraments,  He  thereby  neither  infuses  into  them  His  own  power,  nor 
abates  in  the  least  the  efficiency  of  His  Spirit;  but  in  accordance  with 
the  capacity  of  our  ignorance  (rudilas)  He  uses  them  as  instruments  in 
such  a  way  that  the  whole  efficiency  (facultas  agendi)  remains  solely  with 
Himself. 

God  uses  the  instrument  but  in  such  a  way  that  all  the  power  (virtus)  is  His. 

XTTT.  Therefore,  as  Paul  advises  us  that  "neither  is  he  that  planteth 
any  thing,  neither  he  that  watereth,  but  God  that  giveth  the  increase  " 
(1  Cor.  iii.  7) ;  so  also  it  may  be  said  of  the  Sacraments,  that  they  are 
nothing,  for  they  will  be  of  no  avail  except  God  work  the  whole  to  com- 
pletion (in  solidum  omnia  efficiat).  They  are  indeed  instruments  with 
which  God  works  efficiently,  when  it  pleases  Him,  but  in  such  a  mannei 
that  the  whole  work  of  our  salvation  must  be  credited  solely  to  Him. 

XTV.  We  have  therefore  decided  that  it  is  solely  Christ  who  verily 
baptizes  us  withiu,  who  makes  us  partakers  of  Him  in  the  Supper,  who, 


654  APPENDIX. 

in  fine,  fulfils  what  the  Sacraments  symbolize,  and  so  uses  indeed,  these 
instruments,  that  the  whole  efficiency  resides  in  His  Spirit. 

How  the  Sacraments  confirm. 

XV.  So  the  Sacraments  are  sometimes  called  seals,  are  said  to  nour- 
ish, confirm,  and  promote  faith;  and  yet  the  Spirit  alone  is  properly  the 
seal,  and  the  same  Spirit  is  the  originator  and  perfecter  of  our  faith. 
For  all  these  attributes  of  the  Sacraments  occupy  a  subordinate  place, 
so  that  not  even  the  least  portion  of  the  work  of  our  salvation  is  trans- 
ferred from  its  sole  author  to  either  the  creature  or  the  elements. 

Not  all  who  participate  in  the  Sacraments  partake  also  of  the  verity. 

XVI.  Moreover,  we  sedulously  teach  that  God  does  not  exert  His 
power  promiscuously  in  all  who  receive  the  Sacraments,  but  only  in  the 
elect.  For  just  as  he  enlightens  unto  faith  none  but  those  whom  He 
has  foreordained  unto  fife,  so  by  the  hidden  power  of  His  spirit  He 
causes  only  the  elect  to  receive  what  the  Sacraments  offer. 

TJie  Sacraments  do  not  confer  grace. 

XVli.  This  doctrine  refutes  that  invention  of  sophists  which  teaches 
that  the  Sacraments  of  the  New  Covenant  confer  grace  on  all  who  do 
not  interpose  the  impediment  of  a  mortal  sin.  For  besides  the  truth 
that  nothing  is  received  in  the  Sacraments  except  by  faith,  it  is  also  to 
be  held  that  God's  grace  is  not  in  the  least  so  linked  to  the  Sacraments 
themselves  that  whoever  has  the  sign  possesses  also  the  reality  {res) ;  for 
the  signs  are  administered  to  the  reprobate  as  well  as  to  the  elect,  but 
the  verity  of  the  signs  comes  only  to  the  latter. 

God's  gifts  are  offered  to  all;  believers  alone  receive  them. 

XVni.  It  is  indeed  certain  that  Christ  and  His  gifts  (dona)  are  offered 
to  all  alike,  and  that  the  verity  of  God  is  not  so  impaired  by  the  unbelief 
of  men  that  the  Sacraments  do  not  always  retain  their  proper  virtue  (vim) ; 
but  all  persons  are  not  capable  of  receiving  Christ  and  His  gifts  (dona). 
Therefore  on  God's  part  there  is  no  variableness,  but  on  the  part  of  men 
each  one  receives  according  to  the  measure  of  his  faith. 

Believers  have  communion  with  Christ,  before  and  without  the  use  of  the 

Sacraments. 

XIX.  Moreover,  as  the  use  of  the  Sacraments  confers  on  unbelievers 
nothing  more  than  if  they  had  abstained  therefrom,  indeed,  is  only  per- 
nicious to  them;  so  without  their  use  the  verity  which  they  symbolize 
endures  to  those  who  believe.  Thus  in  Baptism  were  washed  away 
Paul's  sins,  which  had  already  been  washed  away  before.  Thus  also 
Baptism  was  to  Cornelius  the  washing  of  regeneration,  and  yet  he  had 
already  received  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  So  in  the  Supper  Christ 
communicates  himself  to  us,  and  yet  He  imparted  himself  to  us  before, 
and  abides  continually  in  us  forever.  For  since  each  one  is  commanded 
to  examine  himself,  it  hence  follows  that  faith  is  required  of  each  before 
he  comes  to  the  Sacraments.  And  yet  there  is  no  faith  without  Christ; 
but  in  so  far  as  in  the  Sacraments  faith  is  confirmed  and  grows,  God's 
gifts  are  confirmed  in  us,  and  so  in  a  measure  Christ  grows  in  us  and 
we  in  Him. 


CONSENSUS    TIGURINUS.  655 

Grace  is  not  so  joined  to  the  act  of  the  Sacraments,  that  their  fruit  is  leceived 
immediately  after  the  act. 

XX.  The  benefit  also  which  we  derive  from  the  Sacraments  should 
by  no  means  be  restricted  to  the  time  in  which  they  are  administered  to 
us;  just  as  if  the  visible  sign  when  brought  forward  into  view,  did  at  the 
same  moment  with  itself  bring  God's  grace.  For  those  who  are  baptized 
in  early  infancy,  God  regenerates  in  boyhood,  in  budding  youth,  and 
sometimes  even  in  old  age.  So  the  benefit  of  Baptism  lies  open  to  the 
whole  course  of  life;  for  the  promise  which  it  contains  is  perpetually 
valid.  It  may,  also,  sometimes  happen,  that  a  partaking  of  the  Supper, 
which  in  the  act  itself  brought  us  little  good  because  of  our  inconsider- 
ateness  or  dullness,  afterward  brings  forth  its  fruit. 

Local  imagination  should  be  suppressed. 

XXI.  Especially  should  every  conception  of  local  (bodily)  presence 
be  suppressed.  For  while  the  signs  are  here  in  the  world  seen  by  the 
eyes,  and  felt  by  the  hands,  Christ,  in  so  far  as  He  is  man,  we  must  con- 
template as  in  no  other  place  but  heaven,  and  seek  Him  in  no  other  way 
than  with  the  mind  and  faith's  understanding.  Wherefore  it  is  a  pre- 
posterous and  impious  superstition  to  enclose  Him  under  elements  of 
this  world. 

Exposition  of  the  words  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  "  Tliis  is  my  body." 

XXII.  We  therefore  repudiate  as  absurd  interpreters,  those  who 
urge  the  precise  literal  sense,  as  they  say,  of  the  customary  words  in  the 
Supper,  "This  is  my  body,"  "This  is  my  blood."  For  we  place  it  be- 
yond all  controversy  that  these  words  are  to  be  understood  figuratively, 
so  that  the  bread  and  the  wine  are  said  to  be  that  which  they  signify. 
And  verily  it  ought  not  to  seem  novel  or  unusual  that  the  name  of  the 
thing  signified  be  transferred  by  metonomy  to  the  sign,  for  expressions 
of  this  kind  are  scattered  throughout  the  Scriptures;  and  saying  this  we 
assert  nothing  that  does  not  plainly  appear  in  all  the  oldest  and  most 
approved  writers  of  the  Church. 

Concerrning  the  eating  of  the  body  of  Christ. 

XXm.  Moreover,  that  Christ,  through  faith  by  the  power  of  His 
Holy  Spirit,  feeds  our  souls  with  the  eating  of  His  flesh  and  the  drinking 
of  His  blood,  is  not  to  be  understood  as  if  any  commingling  or  transfu- 
sion of  substance  occurred,  but  as  meaning  that  from  flesh  once  offered 
in  sacrifice  and  blood  once  poured  out  in  expiation  we  derive  life. 

Against  Transubstantiation  and  other  silly  conceits. 

XXTV.  In  this  way  not  only  is  the  invention  of  Papists  about  tran- 
substantiation refuted,  but  also  all  the  gross  fictions  and  futile  subtleties 
which  are  either  derogatory  to  His  divine  glory  or  inconsistent  with  the 
verity  of  His  human  nature.  For  we  consider  it  no  less  absurd  to  locate 
Christ  under  the  bread,  or  conjoin  Him  with  the  bread,  than  to  transub- 
stantiate the  bread  into  His  body. 

Christ's  body  is  in  heaven  as  in  a  place. 

XXV.  But  in  order  that  no  ambiguity  may  remain,  when  we  say  that 
Christ  should  be  contemplated  as  in  heaven,  the  phrase  implies  and  ex- 
presses a  difference  of  place  (a  distance  between  places).     For  though, 


056  APPENDIX. 

philosophically  speaking,  "above  the  heavens"  is  not  a  locality,  yet 
because  the  body  of  Christ — as  the  nature  and  the  limitation  of  the 
human  body  show — is  finite,  and  is  contained  in  heaven  as  in  a  place,  it 
is  therefore  necessarily  separated  from  us  by  as  great  an  interval  as  lies 
between  heaven  and  earth. 

Christ  is  not  to  be  worshipped  in  the  bread. 

XXVI.  But  if  it  is  not  right  for  us  in  imagination  to  affix  Christ  to 
the  bread  and  wine,  much  less  is  it  lawful  to  worship  Him  in  the  bread. 
For  though  the  bread  is  presented  to  us  as  a  symbol  and  pledge  of  our 
communion  with  Christ,  yet  because  it  is  the  sign,  not  the  reality,  neither 
has  the  reality  enclosed  in  it  or  affixed  to  it,  they  therefore  who  bend 
their  minds  upon  it  to  worship  Christ,  make  it  an  idol. 


II. 

FORMULA  CONSENSUS  HELVETICA. 

COMPOSED  AT  ZURICH,  A.  D.  1675,  BY  JOHN  HENRY  HEIDEGGER,  OP  ZURICH, 
ASSISTED  BY  FRANCIS  TURRETINE,  OP  GENEVA,  AND  LUKE  GERNLER, 
OF  BASLE,  AND  DESIGNED  TO  CONDEMN  AND  EXCLUDE  THAT  MODIFIED 
FORM  OF  CALVINISM,  WHICH,  IN  THE  SEVENTEENTH  CENTURY,  EMA- 
NATED FROM  THE  THEOLOGICAL  SCHOOL  AT  SAUMUR,  REPRESENTED 
BY  AMYRAULT,  PLACEUS,  AND  DAILLE ;  ENTITLED  "FORM  OF  AGREEMENT 
OF  THE  HELVETIC  REFORMED  CHURCHES  RESPECTING  THE  DOCTRINE  OP 
UNIVERSAL  GRACE,  THE  DOCTRINES  CONNECTED  THEREWITH,  AND  SOME 
OTHER    POINTS." 


CANONS. 

I.  God,  the  Supreme  Judge,  not  only  took  care  to  have  His  word, 
which  is  the  "power  of  God  unto  salvation  to  every  one  that  believeth" 
(,Kom.  i.  16),  committed  to  writing  by  Moses,  the  Prophets,  and  the 
Apostles,  but  has  also  watched  and  cherished  it  with  paternal  care  ever 
since  it  was  written  up  to  the  present  time,  so  that  it  could  not  be  cor- 
rupted by  craft  of  Satan  or  fraud  of  man.  Therefore  the  Church  justly 
ascribes  it  to  His  singular  grace  and  goodness  that  she  has,  and  will  have 
to  the  end  of  the  world,  a  "  sure  word  of  prophecy  "  and  "  Holy  Script- 
ures "  (2  Tim.  iii.  15),  from  which,  though  heaven  and  earth  perish,  "one 
jot  or  one  tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass  "  (Matt.  v.  18). 

II.  But,  in  particular,  the  Hebrew  Original  of  the  Old  Testament, 
which  we  have  received  and  to  this  day  do  retain  as  handed  down  by  the 
Jewish  Church,  unto  whom  formerly  "were  committed  the  oracles  of 
God  "  (Rom.  iii.  2),  is,  not  only  in  its  consonants,  but  in  its  vowels — 
either  the  vowel  points  themselves,  or  at  least  the  power  of  the  points 
— not  only  in  its  matter,  but  in  its  words,  inspired  of  God,  thus  forming, 


FORMULA    CONSENSUS   HELVETICA.  657 

together  with  the  Original  of  the  New  Testament,  the  sole  and  complete 
rule  of  our  faith  and  life;  and  to  its  standard,  as  to  a  Lydian  stone,  all 
extant  versions,  oriental  and  occidental,  ought  to  be  applied,  and  where- 
ever  they  differ,  be  conformed. 

III.  Therefore  we  can  by  no  means  approve  the  opinion  of  those 
who  declare  that  the  text  which  the  Hebrew  Original  exhibits  was  deter- 
mined by  man's  will  alone,  and  do  not  scruple  at  all  to  remodel  a  Hebrew 
reading  which  they  consider  unsuitable,  and  amend  it  from  the  Greek 
Versions  of  the  LXX  and  others,  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  the  Chaldee 
Targums,  or  even  from  other  sources,  yea,  sometimes  from  their  own 
reason  alone;  and  furthermore,  they  do  not  acknowledge  any  other  read- 
ing to  be  genuine  except  that  which  can  be  educed  by  the  critical  power 
of  the  human  judgment  from  the  collation  of  editions  with  each  other 
and  with  the  various  readings  of  the  Hebrew  Original  itself — which,  they 
maintain,  has  been  corrupted  in  various  ways;  and  finally,  they  affirm 
that  besides  the  Hebrew  edition  of  the  present  time,  there  are  in  the 
Versions  of  the  ancient  interpreters  which  differ  from  our  Hebrew  con- 
text other  Hebrew  Originals,  since  these  Versions  are  also  indicative  of 
ancient  Hebrew  Originals  differing  from  each  other.  Thus  they  bring 
the  foundation  of  our  faith  and  its  inviolable  authority  into  perilous 
hazard. 

IV.  Before  the  foundation  of  the  world  God  purposed  in  Christ  Jesus, 
our  Lord,  an  eternal  purpose  (Eph.  iii.  11),  in  which,  from  the  mere  good 
pleasure  of  His  own  will,  without  any  prevision  of  the  merit  of  works  or 
of  faith,  unto  the  praise  of  His  glorious  grace,  out  of  the  human  race 
lying  in  the  same  mass  of  corruption  and  of  common  blood,  and,  there- 
fore, corrupted  by  sin,  He  elected  a  certain  and  definite  number  to  be  led, 
in  time,  unto  salvation  by  Christ,  their  Surety  and  sole  Mediator,  and 
on  account  of  His  merit,  by  the  mighty  power  of  the  regenerating  Holy 
Spirit,  to  be  effectually  called,  regenerated,  and  gifted  with  faith  and 
repentance.  So,  indeed,  God,  determining  to  illustrate  His  glory,  de- 
creed to  create  man  perfect,  in  the  first  place,  then,  permit  him  to  fall, 
and  at  length  pity  some  of  the  fallen,  and  therefore  elect  those,  but 
leave  the  rest  in  the  corrupt  mass,  and  finally  give  them  over  to  eternal 
destruction. 

V.  In  that  gracious  decree  of  Divine  Election,  moreover,  Christ  him- 
self is  also  included,  not  as  the  meritorious  cause,  or  foundation  anterior 
to  Election  itself,  but  as  being  Himself  also  elect  (1  Peter  ii.  4,  6),  fore- 
known before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  and  accordingly,  as  the  first 
requisite  of  the  execution  of  the  decree  of  Election,  chosen  Mediator,  and 
our  first  born  Brother,  whose  precious  merit  God  determiued  to  use  for 
the  purpose  of  conferring,  without  detriment  to  His  own  justice,  salva- 
tion upon  us.  For  the  Holy  Scriptures  not  only  declare  that  Election 
was  made  according  to  the  mere  good  pleasure  of  the  Divine  counsel  and 
will  (Eph.  i.  5,  9;  Matt.  xi.  26),  but  also  make  the  appointment  and  giv- 
ing of  Christ,  our  Mediator,  to  proceed  from  the  strenuous  love  of  God 
the  Father  toward  the  world  of  the  elect. 

VI.  Wherefore  we  can  not  give  suffrage  to  the  opinion  of  those  who 
teach: — (1)  that  God,  moved  by  philanthropy,  or  a  sort  of  special  love 
for  the  fallen  human  race,  to  previous  election,  did,  in  a  kincf  of  condi- 
tioned willing — willingness — first  moving  of  pity,  as  they  call  it — ineffi- 
cacious desire — purpose  the  salvation  of  all  and  each,  at  least,  condition- 
ally, i.  e.,  if  they  would  believe;  (2)  that  He  appointed  Christ  Mediator 
for  all  and  each  of  the  fallen;  and  (3)  that,  at  length,  certain  ones  whom 
He  regarded,  not  simply  as  sinners  in  the  first  Adam,  but  as  redeemed 

42 


658  ArPENDix. 

in  the  second  Adam,  He  elected,  i.  e.,  He  determined  to  graciously  be- 
stow on  these,  in  time,  the  saving  gift  of  faith;  and  in  this  sole  act  Elec- 
tion properly  so  called  is  complete.  For  these  and  all  other  kindred 
teachings  are  in  no  wise  insignificant  deviations  from  the  form  of  sound 
words  respecting  Divine  Election;  because  the  Scriptures  do  not  extend 
unto  all  and  each  God's  purpose  of  showing  mercy  to  man,  but  restrict 
it  to  the  elect  alone,  the  reprobate  being  excluded,  even  by  name,  as 
Esau,  whom  God  hated  with  an  eternal  hatred  (Rom.  ix.  10-13).  The 
same  Holy  Scriptures  testify  that  the  counsel  and  the  will  of  God  change 
not,  but  stand  immovable,  and  God  in  the  heavens  doeth  whatsoever  he 
will  (Ps.  cxv.  3;  Isa.  xlvi.  10);  for  God  is  infinitely  removed  from  all  that 
human  imperfection  which  characterizes  inefficacious  affections  and  de- 
sires, rashness,  repentance,  and  change  of  purpose.  The  appointment, 
also,  of  Christ,  as  Mediator,  equally  with  the  salvation  of  those  who  were 
given  to  Him  for  a  possession  and  an  inheritance  that  can  not  be  taken 
away,  proceeds  from  one  and  the  same  Election,  and  does  not  underly 
Election  as  its  foundation. 

VXI.  As  all  His  works  were  known  unto  God  from  eternity  (Acts  xv. 
18),  so  in  time,  according  to  His  infinite  power,  wisdom,  and  goodness, 
He  made  man,  the  glory  and  end  of  His  works,  in  His  own  image,  and, 
therefore,  upright,  wise,  and  just.  Him,  thus  constituted,  He  put  under 
the  Covenant  of  Works,  and  in  this  Covenant  freely  promised  him  com- 
munion with  God,  favor,  and  life,  if  indeed  he  acted  in  obedience  to 
His  will. 

VIII.  Moreover  that  promise  annexed  to  the  Covenant  of  Works  was 
not  a  continuation  only  of  earthly  life  and  happiness,  but  the  possession 
especially  of  life  eternal  and  celestial,  a  life,  namely,  of  both  body  and 
soul  in  heaven — if  indeed  man  ran  the  course  of  perfect  obedience — with 
unspeakable  joy  in  communion  with  God.  For  not  only  did  the  Tree 
of  Life  prefigure  this  very  thing  unto  Adam,  but  the  power  of  the  law, 
which,  being  fulfilled  by  Christ,  who  went  under  it  in  our  stead,  awards 
to  us  no  other  than  celestial  life  in  Christ  who  kept  the  righteousness  of 
the  law  (Rom.  ii.  26),  manifestly  proves  the  same,  as  also  the  opposite 
threatening  of  death  both  temporal  and  eternal. 

IX.  Wherefore  we  can  not  assent  to  the  opinion  of  those  who  deny 
that  a  reward  of  heavenly  bliss  was  proffered  to  Adam  on  condition  of 
obedience  to  God,  and  do  not  admit  that  the  promise  of  the  Covenant 
of  Works  was  any  thing  more  than  a  promise  of  perpetual  life  abound- 
ing in  every  kind  of  good  that  can  be  suited  to  the  body  and  soul 
of  man  in  a  state  of  perfect  nature,  and  the  enjoyment  thereof  in  an 
earthly  Paradise.  Eor  this  also  is  contrary  to  the  sound  sense  of  the 
Divine  Word,  and  weakens  the  power  (potestas)  of  the  law  in  itself 
considered. 

X.  As,  however,  God  entered  into  the  Covenant  of  Works  not  only 
with  Adam  for  himself,  but  also,  in  him  as  the  head  and  root  (stirps), 
with  the  whole  human  race,  who  would,  by  virtue  of,  the  blessing  of  the 
nature  derived  from  him,  inherit  also  the  same  perfection,  provided  ho 
continued  therein ;  so  Adam  by  his  mournful  fall,  not  only  for  himself, 
but  also  for  the  whole  human  race  that  woidd  be  born  of  bloods  and  the 
will  of  the  flesh,  sinned  and  lost  the  benefits  promised  in  the  Covenant. 
We  hold,  therefore,  that  the  sin  of  Adam  is  imputed  by  the  mysterious 
and  just  judgment  of  God  to  all  his  posterity.  Eor  the  Apostle  testifies 
that  in  Adam  all  sinned,  by  one  man's  disobedience  many  were  made  sinners 
(Rom.  v.  12,  19),  and  in  Adam  all  die  (1  Cor.  xv.  21,  22).  But  there 
appears  no  way  in  which  hereditary  corruption  could  fall,  as  a  spiritual 


FORMULA    CONSENSUS    HELVETICA.  669 

death,  upon  the  whole  human  race  by  the  just  judgment  of  God,  unless 
some  sin  {delictum)  of  that  race  preceded,  incurring  (inducens)  the  penalty 
[reatian,  guilt)  of  that  death.  For  God,  the  supremely  just  Judge  of  all 
the  earth,  punishes  none  but  the  guilty. 

XI.  For  a  double  reason,  therefore,  man,  because  of  sin  (post peccntum) 
is  by  nature,  and  hence  from  his  birth,  before  committing  any  actual  sin, 
exposed  to  God's  wrath  and  curse;  first,  on  account  of  the  transgression 
and  disobedience  which  he  committed  in  the  loins  of  Adam;  and,  sec- 
ondly, on  account  of  the  consequent  hereditary  corruption  implanted  in 
his  very  conception,  whereby  his  whole  nature  is  depraved  and  spir- 
itually dead;  so  that  original  sin  may  rightly  be  regarded  as  twofold, 
viz. ,  imputed  sin  and  inherent  hereditary  sin. 

XII.  Accordingly  we  can  not,  without  harm  to  Divine  truth,  give 
assent  to  those  who  deny  that  Adam  represented  his  posterity  by  appoint- 
ment of  God,  and  that  his  sin  is  imputed,  therefore,  immediately  to  his 
posterity;  and  under  the  term  imputation  mediate  and  consequent  not  only 
destroy  the  imputation  of  the  first  sin,  but  also  expose  the  doctrine 
(asserHo)  of  hereditary  corruption  to  great  danger. 

XHl.  As  Christ  was  from  eternity  elected  the  Head,  Prince,  and 
Lord  (Ho?res)  of  all  who,  in  time,  are  saved  by  His  grace,  so  also,  in 
time,  He  was  made  Surety  of  the  New  Covenant  only  for  those  who, 
by  the  eternal  Election,  were  given  to  Him  as  His  own  people  (populus 
peculii),  His  seed  and  inheritance.  For  according  to  the  determinate 
counsel  of  the  Father  and  His  own  intention,  He  encountered  dreadful 
death  instead  of  the  elect  alone,  restored  only  these  into  the  bosom  of 
the  Father's  grace,  and  these  only  he  reconciled  to  God,  the  offended 
Father,  and  delivered  from  the  curse  of  the  law.  For  our  Jesus  saves; 
His  people  from  their  sins  (Matt.  i.  21),  who  gave  His  life  a  ransom  for 
many  sheep  (Matt.  xx.  28;  John  x.  15),  His  own,  who  hear  His  voice 
(John  x.  27,  28),  and  for  these  only  He  also  intercedes,  as  a  divinely 
appointed  Priest,  and  not  for  the  world  (John  xvii.  9).  Accordingly  in 
the  death  of  Christ,  only  the  elect,  who  in  time  are  made  new  creatures 
(2  Cor.  v.  17),  and  for  whom  Christ  in  His  death  was  substituted  as  an 
expiatory  sacrifice,  are  regarded  as  having  died  with  Him  and  as  being 
justified  from  sin;  and  thus,  with  the  counsel  of  the  Father  who  gave  to 
Christ  none  but  the  elect  to  be  redeemed,  and  also  with  the  working  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  who  sanctifies  and  seals  unto  a  living  hope  of  eternal 
fife  none  but  the  elect,  the  will  of  Christ  who  died  so  agrees  and  ami- 
cably conspires  in  perfect  harmony,  that  the  sphere  of  the  Father's  election 
(Patris  eligentis),  the  Son's  redemption  (Filii  redimentis),  and  the  Spirit's 
sanctification  (Spirilus  S.  sanctificanlis)  is  one  and  the  same  (cequalis  patent). 

XrV.  This  very  thing  further  appears  in  this  also,  that  Christ  merited 
for  those  in  whose  stead  He  died  the  means  of  salvation,  especially  the 
regenerating  Spirit  and  the  heavenly  gift  of  faith,  as  well  as  salvation 
itself,  and  actually  confers  these  upon  them.  For  the  Scriptures  testify 
that  Christ,  the  Lord,  came  to  save  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel 
(Matt.  xv.  24),  and  sends  the  same  Holy  Spirit,  the  fount  of  regenera- 
tion, as  His  own  (John  xvi.  7,  8) ;  that  among  the  better  promises  of  the 
New  Covenant  of  which  He  was  made  Mediator  and  Surety  this  one  is 
pre-eminent,  that  He  null  write  His  law,  i.  e.,  the  law  of  faith,  in  the  hearts 
of  his  people  (Heb.  viii.  10) ;  that  whatsoever  the  Father  has  jiven  to  Christ 
will  come  to  Him,  by  faith,  surely;  and  finally,  that  we  are  chosen  in  Christ 
to  be  holy  and  without  blame,  and,  moreover,  children  by  Him  (Eph.  i.  4,  5); 
but  our  being  holy  and  children  of  God  proceeds  only  from  faith  and  the 
Hnirit  of  regeneration. 


660  APPENDIX. 

XV.  But  by  the  obedience  of  his  death  Christ  instead  of  the  elect  so 
satisfied  God  the  Father,  that  in  the  estimate,  nevertheless,  of  His  vica- 
rious righteousness  and  of  that  obedience,  all  of  that  which  He  rendered 
to  the  law,  as  its  just  servant,  during  the  whole  course  of  His  life, 
whether  by  doing  or  by  suffering,  ought  to  be  called  obedience.  For 
Christ's  life,  according  to  the  Apostle's  testimony  (Philip,  ii.  7,  8),  was 
nothing  but  a  continuous  emptying  of  self,  submission  and  humiliation, 
descending  step  by  step  to  the  very  lowest  extreme,  even  the  death  of 
the  Cross;  and  the  Spirit  of  God  plainly  declares  that  Christ  in  our  stead 
satisfied  the  law  and  Divine  justice  by  His  most  holy  life,  and  makes  that 
ransom  with  which  God  has  redeemed  us  to  consist  not  in  His  sufferings 
only,  but  in  His  whole  life  conformed  to  the  law.  The  Spirit,  however, 
ascribes  our  redemption  to  the  death,  or  the  blood,  of  Christ,  in  no 
other  sense  than  that  it  was  consummated  by  sufferings;  and  from  that 
last  terminating  and  grandest  act  derives  a  name  (denominationem  facit) 
indeed,  but  in  such  a  way  as  by  no  means  to  separate  the  life  preceding 
from  His  death. 

XVI.  Since  all  these  things  are  entirely  so,  surely  we  can  not  approve 
the  contrary  doctrine  of  those  who  affirm  that  of  His  own  intention,  by 
His  own  counsel  and  that  of  the  Father  who  sent  Him,  Christ  died  for 
all  and  each  upon  the  impossible  condition,  provided  they  believe;  that 
He  obtained  for  all  a  salvation,  which,  nevertheless,  is  not  applied  to  all, 
and  by  His  death  merited  salvation  and  faith  for  no  one  individually  and 
certainly  (proprie  et  actu),  but  only  removed  the  obstacle  of  Divine  justice, 
and  acquired  for  the  Father  the  liberty  of  entering  into  a  new  covenant 
of  grace  with  all  men ;  and  finally,  they  so  separate  the  active  and  passive 
righteousness  of  Christ,  as  to  assert  that  He  claims  His  active  righteous- 
ness for  himself  as  His  own,  but  gives  and  imputes  only  His  passive 
righteousness  to  the  elect.  All  these  opinions,  and  all  that  are  like  these, 
are  contrary  to  the  plain  Scriptures  and  the  glory  of  Christ,  who  is 
A  uthor  and  Finisher  of  our  faith  and  salvation ;  they  make  His  cross  of 
none  effect,  and  under  the  appearance  of  augmenting  His  merit,  they 
really  diminish  it. 

XVTI.  The  call  unto  salvation  was  suited  to  its  due  time  (1  Tim.  ii.  6) ; 
since  by  God's  will  it  was  at  one  time  more  restricted,  at  another,  more 
extended  and  general,  but  never  absolutely  universal.  For,  indeed,  in 
the  Old  Testament  God  showed  His  word  unto  Jacob,  His  statutes  and  His 
judgments  unto  Israel;  He  dealt  not  so  with  any  nation  (Ps.  cxlvii.  19,  20). 
In  the  New  Testament,  peace  being  made  in  the  blood  of  Christ  and 
the  inner  wall  of  partition  broken  down,  God  so  extended  the  limits 
(pomceria)  of  Gospel  preaching  and  the  external  call,  that  there  is  no 
longer  any  difference  between  the  Jew  and  the  Greek  ;  for  the  same  Lord  over 
all  is  rich  unto  all  that  call  upon  Him  (Rom.  x.  12).  But  not  even  thus  is 
the  call  universal;  for  Christ  testifies  that  many  are  called  (Matt.  xx.  16), 
not  all;  and  when  Paul  and  Timothy  essayed  to  go  into  Bithynia  to 

E reach  the  Gospel,  the  Spirit  suffered  them  not  (Acts  xvi.  7);  and  there 
ave  been  and  there  are  to-day,  as  experience  testifies,  innumerable 
myriads  of  men  to  whom  Christ  is  not  known  even  by  rumor. 

XVIII.  Meanwhile  God  left  not  himself  without  witness  (Acts  xiv.  17) 
unto  those  whom  He  refused  to  call  by  His  Word  unto  salvation.  For 
He  divided  unto  them  the  spectacle  of  the  heavens  and  the  stars  (Deut. 
iv.  19),  and  thai  which  may  be  known  of  God,  even  from  the  works  of 
nature  and  Providence,  He  hath  showed  unto  them  (Rom.  i.  19),  for  the 
purpose  of  attesting  His  long  suffering.  Yet  it  is  not  to  be  affirmed  that 
the  works  of  nature  and  Divine  Providence  were  means  (organa),  suffi- 


FORMULA    CONSENSUS   HELVETICA.  661 

oient  of  themselves  and  fulfilling  the  function  of  the  external  call,  where* 
by  He  -would  reveal  unto  them  the  mystery  of  the  good  pleasure  or  mercy 
of  God  in  Christ.  For  the  Apostle  immediately  adds  (Rom.  i.  20),  "The 
invisible  things  of  Him  from  the  creation  are  clearly  seen,  being  under- 
stood by  the  things  that  are  made,  even  His  eternal  power  and  Godhead;" 
not  His  hidden  good  pleasure  in  Christ,  and  not  even  to  the  end  that 
thence  they  might  learn  the  mystery  of  salvation  through  Christ,  but 
that  they  might  be  without  excuse,  because  they  did  not  use  aright  the 
knowledge  that  was  left  them,  but  when  they  knew  God,  they  glorified  Him 
not  as  God,  neither  were  thankful.  "Wherefore  also  Christ  glorifies  God, 
His  Father,  because  He  had  hidden  these  things  from  the  wise  and  the  pru- 
dent, and  revealed  them  unto  babes  (Matt.  xi.  25) ;  and  the  Apostle  teaches, 
moreover,  that  God  has  made  known  unto  us  the  mystery  of  His  will 
according  to  His  good  pleasure  which  He  hath  purposed  in  Himself  (in 
Ghristo),  (Eph.  i.  9). 

XIX.  Likewise  the  external  call  itself,  which  is  made  by  the  preach- 
ing of  the  Gospel,  is  on  the  part  of  God  also,  who  calls,  earnest  and  sin- 
cere. For  in  His  Word  He  unfolds  earnestly  and  most  truly,  not,  indeed, 
His  secret  intention  respecting  the  salvation  or  destruction  of  each  indi- 
vidual, but  what  belongs  to  our  duty,  and  what  remains  for  us  if  we  do 
or  neglect  this  duty.  Clearly  it  is  the  will  of  God  who  calls,  that  they 
who  are  called  come  to  Him  and  not  neglect  so  great  salvation,  and  so 
He  promises  eternal  life  also  in  good  earnest,  to  those  who  come  to  Him 
by  faith;  for,  as  the  Apostle  declares,  "it  is  a  faithful  saying: — For  if  we 
be  dead  with  Him,  we  shall  also  live  with  Him;  if  we  suffer,  we  shall  also 
reign  with  Him;  if  we  deny  Him,  He  also  will  deny  us;  if  we  believe  not, 
yet  He  abideth  faithful;  He  can  not  deny  Himself."  Nor  in  regard  to 
those  who  do  not  obey  the  call  is  this  will  inefficacious;  for  God  always 
attains  that  which  He  intends  in  His  will  (quod  volens  iniendit),  even  the 
demonstration  of  duty,  and  following  this,  either  the  salvation  of  the 
elect  who  do  their  duty,  or  the  inexcusableness  of  the  rest  who  neglect 
the  duty  set  before  them.  Surely  the  spiritual  man  in  no  way  secures 
(concilial)  the  internal  purpose  of  God  to  produce  faith  (conceptum  Dei 
internum,  fidei  analogum)  along  with  the  externally  proffered,  or  written 
"Word  of  God.  Moreover,  because  God  approved  every  verity  which 
flows  from  His  counsel,  therefore  it  is  rightly  said  to  be  His  will,  that 
all  who  see  the  Son  and  believe  on  Him  may  have  everlasting  life  (John  vi. 
40).  Although  these  "  all "  are  the  elect  alone,  and  God  formed  no  plan 
of  universal  salvation  without  any  selection  of  persons,  and  Christ  there- 
fore died  not  for  every  one  but  for  the  elect  only  who  were  given  to  Him ; 
yet  He  intends  this  in  any  case  to  be  universally  true,  which  follows  from 
His  special  and  definite  purpose.  But  that,  by  God's  will,  the  elect  alone 
believe  in  the  external  call  thus  universally  proffered,  while  the  repro- 
bate are  hardened,  proceeds  solely  from  the  discriminating  grace  of  God: 
election  by  the  same  grace  to  them  that  believe;  but  their  own  native 
wickedness  to  the  reprobate  who  remain  in  sin,  and  after  their  hard- 
ness and  impenitent  heart  treasure  up  unto  themselves  wrath  against 
the  day  of  wrath,  and  revelation  of  the  righteous  judgment  of  God 
(Rom.  ii.  5). 

XX.  Accordingly  we  have  no  doubt  that  they  err  who  hold  that  the 
call  unto  salvation  is  disclosed  not  by  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  solely, 
but  even  by  the  works  of  nature  and  Providence  without  any  further 
proclamation;  adding,  that  the  call  unto  salvation  is  so  indefinite  and 
universal  that  there  is  no  mortal  who  is  not,  at  least  objectively,  as  they 
say,  sufficiently  called  either  mediately,  namely,  in  that  God  will  furthei 


662  APPENDIX. 

bestow  the  light  of  grace  on  him  who  rightly  uses  the  light  of  nature,  or 
immediately,  unto  Christ  and  salvation;  and  finally  denying  that  the  ex- 
ternal call  can  be  said  to  be  serious  and  true,  or  the  candor  and  sincerity 
of  God  be  defended,  without  asserting  the  absolute  universality  of  grace. 
For  such  doctrines  are  contrary  to  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  the  experi- 
ence of  all  ages,  and  manifestly  confound  nature  with  grace,  that  which 
may  be  known  of  God  with  His  hidden  wisdom,  the  light  of  reason,  in 
fine,  with  the  light  of  Divine  Revelation. 

XXI.  They  who  are  called  unto  salvation  through  the  preaching  of 
the  Gospel  can  neither  believe  nor  obey  the  call,  unless  they  are  raised 
Tip  out  of  spiritual  death  by  that  very  power  whereby  God  commanded 
the  light  to  shine  out  of  darkness,  and  God  shines  into  their  hearts  with 
the  soul-swaying  grace  of  His  Spirit,  to  give  the  light  of  the  knowledge  of 
the  glory  of  God  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ  (2  Cor.  iv.  6).  For  the  natural 
man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God;  for  they  are  foolishness  unto 
him:  neither  can  he  know  them,  because  they  are  spiritually  discerned  (1  Cor. 
ii.  14);  and  this  utter  inability  the  Scripture  demonstrates  by  so  many 
direct  testimonies  and  under  so  many  emblems  that  scarcely  in  any  other 
point  is  it  surer  (locupletior).  This  inability  may,  indeed,  be  called  moral 
even  in  so  far  as  it  pertains  to  a  moral  subject  or  object;  but  it  ought  at 
the  same  time  to  be  also  called  natural,  inasmuch  as  man  by  nature,  and 
so  by  the  law  of  his  formation  in  the  womb,  and  hence  from  his  birth,  is 
the  child  of  disobedience  (Eph.  ii.  2) ;  and  has  that  inability  so  innate  (con- 
genitam)  that  it  can  be  shaken  off  in  no  way  except  by  the  omnipotent 
heart-turning  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

XXII.  We  hold  therefore  that  they  speak  with  too  little  accuracy  and 
not  without  danger,  who  call  this  inability  to  believe  moral  inability, 
and  do  not  hold  it  to  be  natural,  adding  that  man  in  whatever  condition 
he  may  be  placed  is  able  to  believe  if  he  will,  and  that  faith  in  some  way 
or  other,  indeed,  is  self -originated ;  and  yet  the  Apostle  most  distinctly 
calls  it  the  gift  of  God  (Eph.  ii.  8). 

XXIII.  There  are  two  ways  in  which  God,  the  just  Judge,  has  prom- 
ised justification :  either  by  one's  own  works  or  deeds  in  the  law ;  or  by 
the  obedience  or  righteousness  of  another,  even  of  Christ  our  Surety, 
imputed  by  grace  to  him  that  believes  in  the  Gospel.  The  former  is  the 
method  of  justifying  man  perfect ;  but  the  latter,  of  justifying  man  a 
sinner  and  corrupt.  In  accordance  with  these  two  ways  of  justification 
the  Scripture  establishes  two  covenants:  the  Covenant  of  Works,  entered 
into  with  Adam  and  with  each  one  of  his  descendants  in  him,  but  made 
void  by  sin;  and  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  made  with  only  the  elect  in 
Christ,  the  second  Adam,  eternal,  and  liable  to  no  abrogation,  as  the 
former. 

XXIV.  But  this  later  Covenant  of  Grace  according  to  the  diversity  of 
times  had  also  different  dispensations.  Eor  when  the  Apostle  speaks  of 
the  dispensation  of  the  fulness  of  times,  i.  e. ,  the  administration  of  the 
last  time,  he  very  clearly  indicates  that  there  had  been  another  dispensa- 
tion and  administration  for  the  times  which  the  7rpoQs6jniav  (Gal.  iv.  2), 
or  appointed  time.  Yet  in  each  dispensation  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace 
the  elect  have  not  been  saved  in  any  other  way  than  by  the  Angel  of  his 
presence  (Is.  lxiii.  9),  the  Lamb  slain  from  the  foundation  of  the  ivorld  (Rev. 
xiii.  8),  Christ  Jesus,  through  the  knowledge  of  that  just  Servant  and 
faith  in  Him  and  in  the  Father  and  His  Spirit.  For  Christ  is  the  same 
yesterday,  to-day,  and  forever  (Heb.  xiii.  8) ;  and  by  His  grace  we  believe 
that  we  are  saved  (servari)  in  the  same  manner  as  the  Fathers  also  were 
saved  (salvati  sunt),  and  in  both  Testaments  these  statutes  remain  im- 


FORMULA    CONSENSUS   HELVETICA.  663 

mutable:  "Blessed  are  all  they  that  put  their  trust  in  Him,"  tho  Son 
(Ps.  ii.  12);  "He  that  believeth  in  Him  is  not  condemned,  but  he  that 
believeth  not  is  condemned  already"  (John  iii.  18);  "Ye  believe  in  God," 
even  the  Father,  "believe  also  in  me  "  (John  xiv.  1).  But  if,  moreover, 
the  sainted  Fathers  believed  in  Christ  as  their  Goel,  it  follows  that  they 
also  believed  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  without  whom  no  one  can  call  Jesus 
Lord.  Truly  so  many  are  the  clearest  exhibitions  of  this  faith  of  the 
Fathers  and  of  the  necessity  thereof  in  either  Covenant,  that  they  can 
not  escape  any  one  unless  he  wills  it.  But  though  thi^  saving  knowledge 
of  Christ  and  the  Holy  Trinity  was  necessarily  derived,  according  to  the 
dispensation  of  that  time,  both  from  the  promise  and  from  shadows  and 
figures  and  enigmas,  with  greater  difficulty  {operosius)  than  now  in  the 
New  Testament;  yet  it  was  a  true  knowledge,  and,  in  proportion  to  the 
measure  of  Divine  Revelation,  was  sufficient  to  procure  for  the  elect,  by 
help  of  God's  grace,  salvation  and  peace  of  conscience. 

XXV.  We  disapprove  therefore  of  the  doctrine  of  those  who  fabricate 
for  us  three  Covenants,  the  Natural,  the  Legal,  and  the  Gospel  Covenant, 
different  in  their  whole  nature  and  pith;  and  in  explaining  these  and 
assigning  their  differences,  so  intricately  entangle  themselves  that  they 
obscure  not  a  little,  or  even  impair,  the  nucleus  of  solid  truth  and  piety; 
nor  do  they  hesitate  at  all,  with  regard  to  the  necessity,  under  the  Old 
Testament  dispensation,  of  knowledge  of  Christ  and  faith  in  Him  and 
His  satisfaction  and  in  the  whole  sacred  Trinity,  to  theologize  much  too 
loosely  and  not  without  danger. 

XXVI.  Finally,  both  unto  us,  to  whom  in  the  Church,  which  is  God's 
house,  has  been  entrusted  the  dispensation  for  the  present,  and  unto  all 
our  Nazarenes,  and  unto  those  who  under  the  will  and  direction  of  God 
will  at  any  time  succeed  us  in  our  charge,  in  order  to  prevent  the  fearful 
enkindling  of  dissensions  with  which  the  Church  of  God  in  different 
places  is  disturbed  {infeslatur)  in  terrible  ways,  we  earnestly  wish  (volumus, 
will)  this  to  be  a  law : — 

That  in  this  corruption  of  the  world,  with  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles 
as  our  faithful  monitor,  we  all  keep  faithfully  that  which  is  committed  to  our 
trust,  avoiding  profane  and  vain  babblings  (1  Tim.  vi.  20) ;  and  religiously 
guard  the  purity  and  simplicity  of  that  knowledge  which  is  according 
to  piety,  constantly  clinging  to  that  beautiful  pair,  Charity  and  Faith, 
unstained. 

Moreover,  in  order  that  no  one  may  be  induced  to  propose  either 
publicly  or  privately  some  doubtful  or  new  dogma  of  faith  hitherto  un- 
heard of  in  our  churches,  and  contrary  to  God's  Word,  to  our  Helvetio 
Confession,  our  Symbolical  Books,  and  to  the  Canons  of  the  Synod  of 
Dort,  and  not  proved  and  sanctioned  in  a  public  assembly  of  brothers 
according  to  the  Word  of  God,  let  it  also  be  a  law: — 

That  we  not  only  hand  down  sincerely  in  accordance  with  the  Divine 
Word,  the  especial  necessity  of  the  sanctification  of  the  Lord's  Day,  but 
also  impressively  inculcate  it  and  importunately  urge  its  observation;  and, 
in  fine,  that  in  our  churches  and  schools,  as  often  as  occasion  demands, 
wo  unanimously  and  faithfully  hold,  teach,  and  assert  the  truth  of  the 
Canons  herein  recorded,  truth  deduced  from  the  indubitable  Word  of 
God. 

The  very  God  of  peace  in  truth  sanctify  us  wholly,  and  preserve  our 
whole  spirit  and  soul  and  body  blameless  unto  the  coming  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  1  to  whom,  with  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Spirit  be  eternal 
honor,  praise  and  glory.     Amen  I 


INDEX. 


ABELARD,  422 

ABILITY  and  Liberty  distinguished, 

339 
ABSOLUTE,  The,  130,  132,  133,  134 
ADOPTION,  515-519 

The  word  defined,  515,  516 

The  "Ordo  Salutis"  stated,  517, 
518 

Benefits  of,  519 
ADVENT,  Second.     (See  Second  Ad- 
vent. ) 
^ESTHETICS,  19 
AGRICOLA,  John,  404 
AINSWORTH,  588 
ALEXANDER,  Dr.  A.,  61,  286,  379 
ALEXANDER,  Dr.  J.  A.,  22,  28,  181, 

182 
ALEXANDER,  Dr.  Lindsay  W.,  633 
ALOGI,  196,  197 
AMBROSE,  94 
AMESIUS,  356,  516 
AMYRANT,  231    W 
ANGELS,  249-257 

Their  nature,  characters,  titles,  offi- 
ces, orders,  and  power,  249-251 

Archangel,  251 

Their  bodies,  252 

Romish  doctrine  of  worship  of,  253 

Guardian,  254 

Evil,  254-256 

Personality  of  Satan,  254 

Demoniacal  possession,  256,  257 
ANNIHILATIONISM,  313 

During   Intermediate   State,    654, 
555 

After  final  Judgment,  583 
ANSELM,  46,  421,  423 
ANTHROPOLOGY,  23,  101,  106,  108, 
109,  280 

Of  Greek  Church,  94 
ANTHROPOMORPHISM,  good  and 
bad  sense  of,  131,  132 

Scripture  Passages  explained,  132 
ANTINOMIANISM,  404,  405,  526 
ANTI-THEISTIC  Theories,  46-52 
APOLLINARIAN  Heresies,  386 
APOLLINARIS,  386 
APOLOGETICS,  19 


APOLOGY  for  Augsburg  Conf.,  123, 
355,  480,  513,  540,  546,  590,  601 
628,  629 
APOLOGY  for  Conf.  of  Remonstrants, 

337,  447,  456 
APOSTLES'  CREED.     (See  Creeds.) 
APOSTLES  had  no  successors,  89 
A  PRIORI  Argument.     (See  God.) 
AQUINAS,  Thomas,  99,  272,  403,  413, 

512   590   637 
ARCHANGEL.     (See  Angels.)  - 
ARCHAEOLOGY,  18 

Biblical,  21 
ARGYLE,  Duke  of,  270,  296,  298 
ARIANS,  103,  167,  180,  196 
ARISTOTELIAN  Philosophy,  63 
ARIUS,  174 

ARMINIUS,  James,  104,  355,  363,  531 
A  R  MINI  AN  Churches,  104 
ARMINIANISM,  96,  98,  107-109,  151, 
152,  202,  207,  223,  224,  231 
Doctrine  of  will,  292-294 
Of  Original  Righteousness,  302,  307 
Of  Perfection,  321 
Of  Original  Sin,  334,  335 
Of  Inability,  339 
Of  Justice  of  God  in  the  antenatal 

forfeiture  of  mankind,  352 
Of  Atonement,  413,  415 
Of  Effectual  Calling,  447,  451,  453, 

455 
Of  Justifying  Faith,  503 
Of  Justification,  508,  509,  514 
Of  Perseverance,  543 
Of  Future  Punishment,  587 
ARMSTRONG,  Dr.  Wm.,  609,  614 
ARNAULD,  100 

ARTICLES,  XXXIX  of  Church  of  Eng- 
land, 103,  113,  125,  235,  337,  346. 
425,  541,  558,  589,  601,  630,  641, 
649 
Of  Smaldcald,  102,  123,  658,  601, 
630 
A  SC ENS  ION  of  Christ     ( See  Christ. ) 
ASSURANCE  of  Election  possible,  228 

Of  Faith,  477-479 
A  THAN  A  SI  AN  Creed.     (See  Oreeda. ) 
ATHANASIUS,  423 


CG6 


INDEX. 


A  THEISM,  46 
ATONEMENT,  401-425 

Its  Nature,  401-415 

Terms  defined,  401h103 

Active  and  Passive  Obedience,  405 

Doctrine  stated,  405,  406 

And  proved,  406 

Its  Necessity,  411 

Includes  Active  and  Passive  Obedi- 
ence, 412 

Its  Perfection,  412-414 

Objections  stated  and  answered, 
414,  415 

Its  Design,  416-421 

Doctrine  stated,  416,  417 

Arminian  Doctrine,  417 

Of  "Marrow  Men,"  417 

Of  French  School  and  of  Baxter, 
418 

Reformed  Doctrine  of,  proved,  418, 
419 

Objections  stated  and  answered, 
419-421 

History  of  Theories  which  have 
prevailed,  421-423 

Mystical,  Moral  Influence,  Gov- 
ernmental Theories,  422 

Satisfaction  Theory,  423 

Classical  and  Confessional  Author- 
ities, 423-425 
ATTRIBUTES,  The  Divine,  107, 129- 

163 
A  VERROES,  52 

BAPTISM,  603-630 

Water  the  Symbol  of  Purification, 
603 

John's  Baptism  not  Christian,  603, 
604 

The  Baptism  practised  by  the  Dis- 
ciples before  the  Resurrection 
not  this  Sacrament,  604 

The  Ordinance  is  of  perpetual  ob- 
ligation, 604,  605 

Defined  as  to  its  "matter"  and 
"form,"  605,  606,  and  as  to  its 
"design,"  606,  607 

Emblematic  Import  of,  607-609 

The  "MODE"  of,  609-616 

Classical  and  Scriptural  usage  of 
fianziloo,  609,  610 

The  position  of  Baptist  Churches 
as  to  "Mode"  stated,  and  that 
of  all  other  Churches,  610,  611 

Baptist  Doctrine  as  to  the  Emblem- 
atic Import  of  Baptism,  607-609, 
and  of  "Mode"  of  Baptism,  609- 
615 

The  Command  to  Baptize  is  a  com- 
mand to  Wash  to  effect  Purifica- 
tion, 611,  612 


BAPTISM  {continued). 

The  application  of  Grace  symbol* 
ized  by  sprinkling  and  pouring, 
612 
Old  Testament  modes  of  purifica- 
tion, 613 
The  Early  Baptisms  performed  by 
John  and  the  Apostles,  613-615 
Historical  Usage, 
SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM,  616- 

625 
Infant  Baptism  grounded  on  the 
constitution  of  human  nature,  616 
Visible  Church,  its  nature  and  de- 
sign, 616-619 
The  Church  one  under  both  Dis- 
pensations, 619-621 
Baptism  takes  the  place  of  Cir- 
cumcision, 621 
Church  membership  of  Children 
recognized   by   Christ   and   his 
Apostles,  621,  622 
Practice  of  Early  Church,  622,  623 
Objections  stated  and   answered, 

622-624 
Whose   Children  should   be  bap- 
tized? 624,  625 
The  Efficacy  of  Baptism  (Roman, 
Lutheran,    Zwinglian,    and   Re- 
formed doctrines),  625-628 
Baptismal  Regeneration,  627,  628 
The  Necessity  of  Baptism  (Rom- 
ish,   Lutheran,    and    Reformed 
doctrine),  628,  629 
Authoritative  Statements,  629,  630 
BAPTISMAL      REGENERATION 

627,  628 
BAPTISTS,  103,  609,  610 
BARCLA  Y,  Robert,  604 
BARNABAS,  569 
BARNES,  Albert,  61 
BARROW,  Dr.  Isaac,  403 
BAUR,  58 

BAXTER,  Richard,  106,  403,  418 
BEECHER,  Dr.  Edward,  351 
BELLARM1N,  305,  307,  336,  354,  449, 
451,  477,  479,  480,  510,  513,  524, 
525,  540,  546,  558,  591,  594,  600, 
629,  618 
BERNARD  of  Clairvaux,  424 
BERYL,  198 
BE  VAN,  634 
BEZA,  234,  355 

BICKERSTETH,  Rev.  E.  H.,  554 
BINGHAM,  615,  623 
BISSEL,  E.  Cone,  62 
BLUNT,  627 

BOARD  MAN,  Dr.  Wm.  K,  194 
BOLINGBROKE,  48 
BOSSUET,  51 
BOSTON,  Thomas,  417 


INDEX. 


667 


BRENTZ,  John,  384 
BRETSCHNEIDER,  57 
BROWN,  Dr.  John,  417,  440 
BROWN,  Dr.,  570 
BRUCE,  Dr.  A.  B.,  384,  389 
BRUNO,  Giordano,  51 
BUCER,  Martin,  640 
BUCHANAN,  Dr.  James,  47,  52 
BULL,  Unigenitus,  449 
BULLINGER,  640 
BUSHNELL,  422 
BUTLER,  Bishop,  48 

CALLING,  Effectual,  445-455 
External  Call,  445,  446 
Internal  Call  proved,  446 
Views  of  different  parties  stated 

and  compared,  447-449 
Reformed  Doctrine  of,   explained 

and  proved,  449-452 
Congruous  to  our  nature,  452 
How  conditioned  upon  the  truth, 

453 
Arminian  Doctrine  of,  453 
Authoritative  Statements  of  Church 

Doctrine,  454,  455 
CALVIN,  100,  102,  166,  333,  354,  417, 

439,  490,  507,  508,  599,  603,  624, 
629,  630,  640,  649 

CALVINISM,  109-111,  202 

Doctrine  of  original  righteousness, 

302,  303,  307 
Doctrine  of  Design  of  the  Atone- 
ment, 416,  419 
CAMBRIDGE,  Platform,  127 
CAMERON,  J.,  231,  341 
CANDLISH,  Dr.  423,  446 
CARL  YLE,  48 

CARSON,  Dr.,  A.,  607,  609,  610 
CATHERINUS,  A.,  357,  362 
CATECHISMS. 

Of  Geneva,  592,  601,  630 
Heidelberg,  103,  113,  124,  424,  480, 

514,  540,  601,  640,  649 
Luther's  Larger  and  Smaller,  102, 

123,  630 
Of  Council  of  Trent,  119,  306,  321, 
456,  479,  480,  491,  492,  493,  499, 
504,  557,  558,  591,  594,  597,  599, 
600,  625,  629,  633,  635,  641 
Racovian,  104,  308,  337,  347,  400, 

425,  503,  504,  514,  630 
Russian  of  Philaret,  122 
Longer,  of  Eastern  Church,  558 
Of  Westminster  Assembly,  103, 113, 
116,  200,  245,  258,  263,  307,  310, 
312,  316,  325,  356,  363,  371,  403, 

440,  451,  487,  516,  518,  521,  558, 
624,  632 

CERINTHUS,  103 

CHALCEDON,  Creed  of.    (See  Oreeds. ) 


CHALMERS,  Dr.  Thos.,  22,  61,  357 
CHANCE,  as  the  ultimate  ground  ol 
the  Evolution  hypothesis  shown 
to  be  absurd,  41 
CHANNING,  Dr.  Wm.,  104 
CHARENTON,  Synod  of,  359 
CHEMNITZ,  363,  384 
CHERUBIM,  249,  250 
CHILIANISM,  569-571 
CHRIST,  His  DIVINITY,  169-173 
CHRIST,  PERSON  of,  378-390 
Prophecies  of  Advent,  378-380 
Doctrine  stated,  380 
And  proved,  380,  381 
Effects  of  union  upon  human  na- 
ture, 382,  383 
Lutheran  Doctrine  of  "Communi- 

catio  Idiomatum,"  384,  385 
Heretical  Opinions  stated,  386-388 
Doctrine  of  Kenosis,  388,  389 
Authoritative  Church  Statements, 
389   390 
CHRIST,  MEDIATORIAL  OFFICE 
of,  391-400 
The  Christian  Ministry  not  a  Priest- 
hood, 398,  399 
The  Priesthood  of  Believers,  399 
Authoritative  Church  Statements, 
399,  400 
CHRIST,  INTERCESSION  of,  426, 

427 
CHRIST,    MEDIATORIAL    KING- 
SHIP  of,   428-444 
Different  aspects  of,  428 
Subjects  of,  429 
When  assumed  by  him,  429 
Usage  of  phrases,    "kingdom   oi 
God,"    "kingdom   of  heaven," 
etc.,  429,  430 
Its  nature  and  administration,  430, 

431 
Romish  Doctrine  of  the  relation  ol 

Church  and  State,  432,  433 
Erastian  view  of  same,  433 
Doctrine  of  Reformed  Churches, 

433 
Design  of  Church  and  of  State,  433 
American  law  on  subject,  434-436 
Relative  jurisdiction   of  Sessions 
and  Trustees,  437 
CHRIST,  His  ESTATE  of  HUMIL- 
IATION, 440-443 
The  Descent  in  Hell,  439 
CHRIST,  His  ESTA  TE  of  EXAL  TA- 
TION,  440-443 
His  resurrection,  441,  442 
His  ascension,  442 
His  sitting  at  the  right  hand  of 

God,  443 
Authoritative  Church  Statements, 
443,  444 


6G8 


INDEX, 


CHRIST,  Union  of  believers  with,  482- 
486 
Its  nature,  482,  483 
Ground,  484 
Consequences,  484,  485 
Communion  of  Saints,  485 
CHRISTIAN  Religion  what?  15 
CHRISTIANITY,  Evidences  of,  19 
CHRISTLIEB,  Dr.,  61 
CHRISTOLOGY,  101,  106,  109 
CHURCH,  Its  idea,  constitution,  offi- 
cers, etc.,  24,  25 
Romish  Doctrine  of  Infallibility  of, 
stated,  87,  88;  and  shown  to  be 
baseless,  88,  89 
One    under    both    Dispensations, 

619-621 
Visible  616-619 
CHURCH  and  STA  TE,  432^38 
CHURCH  of  England  and  Episcopal 
Church  in  U.  S.  A.,  Doctrine  of 
as  to  the  "  Descent  into  Hell, "  439 
CLARKE,  Dr.  Sam.,  46 
CLARKE,  47 

CLEMENTINE  Homilies,  103 
CLERK-MAXWELL,  Prof.  J.,  24,  34 
COCCEJUS,  362,  425 
CCELESTIUS,  96 
COLERIDGE,  S.  T.,  58,  63 
COMMUNION  of  saints,  485 
COMMUNICATIO       IDIOMATUM, 

382   384 
COMPARA  TIVE  RELIGION,  Science 

of,  18 
COMPARATIVE  PHILOLOGY,  18 
COMPARISON  of SYSTEMS,  94-111 
CON  A  NT,  Dr.,  609 
CONDITIONAL    UNIVERSALISM, 

418 
CONFERENCE,  Leipsic,  100 
CONCOMITANCE,   Roman   doctrine 

of,  637,  647 
CONFESSIONS. 

Augsburgh,  101, 102, 103, 113,  122, 
123,  346,  490,  576,  600,  601,  628, 
640,  648 
Basle,  640 

Belgic,  80,  103,  337,  576,  640,  649 
Gallic,  103,  337,  354,  599,  640,  643, 

649 
English  of  Edward  VL,  576 
Helvetic  I.,  640 
Helvetic  II,  80,  103,  113,  124,  346, 

354,  390,  399,  400,  541,  643 
Scotch,  103,  113,  592,  640,  643,  644 
Of  the  Remonstrants,  454,  543 
Of  Orthodox  Greek  Church,  122, 

424 
Tetrapolitana,  124,  640 
Westminster,    81,    126,    182,    200, 
233,  244,  245,  258,  263,  307,  310, 


CONFESSIONS  (contimud). 

312,  316,  325,  347,  356,  363,  371, 
390,  403,  416,  417,  424,  454,  480, 
485,  487,  514,  521,  541,  542,  548, 
552,  569,  576,  589,  591,  592,  599, 
602,  605,  624,  626,  629,  630,  635, 
643,  644,  650 
CONSCIENCE,  282-285 
CONSENSUS  Genevensis,  127 

Tigurinus,  127,  640,  641,  650,  and 
in  Appendix. 
CONSTABLE,  Rev.  Henry,  583 
COSMOLOGICAL    Argument.      (See 

God.) 
COUNCILS. 

Carthage,  96 

Chalcedon,  95,  385,  387,  388,  464 

Constantinople  I.,  95,  174,  191, 
387,  388 

Constantinople  VI. ,  95 

Ephesus,  95,  96,  385,  387 

LateranlV,  637 

Milevum,  96 

Nice,  95,  115,  166,  173,  191,  385 

Toledo,  95,  191 

Trent,  Decrees  of,  80,  92,  119,  336 
346,  354,  399,  413,  424,  443,  449, 
451,  456,  490,  491,  492,  493,  494, 
495,  499,  510,  511,  513,  527,  530, 
531,  539,  540,  543,  546,  557,  589, 
591,  592,  594,  599,  600,  603,  635, 
640,  641,  644,  646,  647,  648 

Vatican,  Decrees  of,  80,  92,  93,  121, 
432 
COUSIN,  52,  104 
COVENANT  of  Works,  309-314 

Different  sense  of  Word,  309 

Doctrine  defined,  309-312 

And  proved,  309-311 

Parties  and  Conditions  of,  311,  318 

Adam  represented  the  race,  311 

Nature  of  the  death  threatened, 
312,  313 

The  seal  of  the  Covenant,  313 

In  what  sense  still  in  force,  314 
COVENANT  of  Grace,  367-377 

Usage  of  word  Berith  and  SiaQijxTjy 
367-369 

Different  views  held  by  Calvinists, 
369,  370 

How  is  Christ  Mediator  of,  372, 
373 

Arminian  view  of,  374 

How  faith  a  condition  of,  374 

History  of  its  administration,  375- 
377 
CREA  TION  of  the  World,  237-248 

Doctrine  of  Absolute,  237,  238 

CREATIO  PRIMA  and  SECUM 
DA,  238,  239 

Doctrine  proved,  239-242 


INDEX. 


G69 


CREA  TION  (continued). 

Chief  end  the  glory  of  God,  243- 
245 

The  Mosaio  record  of  and  Science, 
245-248 
CREATION  and    Original    State    of 

Man,  296-308 
CREATIONISM,  351,  352 
CREEDS,  Apostles',  113,  115 

Athanasian,  113,  117,  118,  182 

Chalcedon,  118,  119 

Of  Pope  Pius  IV.,  119-121 
CREEDS  and  CONEESSIONS,  112- 
128 

Why  necessary,  112 

How  produced,  112,  113 

Uses  of,  114 

Authority  of,  114 
CRELLIUS,  J.,  104 
CRISP,  Dr.  Tobias,  404 
CRITICISM,  the  Higher,  20 

Textual,  20 
CUNNINGHAM,  Dr.   Wm.,   99,   125, 

216,  218.  349,  357,  402 
CURCELLsEUS,  105,  413 
CYPRIAN,  623 
CYRIL,  387 

DABNEY,  Dr.  Robert  L.,  366 
DALE,  Dr.  James  W.,  609 
DANjEUS,  L.,  355 
DARWIN,  Charles,  39,  47 
DEA  TH&nd  the  State  of  the  Soul  after 
Death,  548-558 

Death  defined,  548 

How  related  to  sin  ?  548 

Why  the  justified  die,  549 

Immortality  of  soul,  549-552 

Old  Testament  doctrine   of,   551, 
552 

Intermediate  state,  552-558 

New  Testament  doctrine  of,  552 

Biblical  usage  of  Sheol,  551 

Hades,  553 

Paradise,  553,  and  Gehenna,  553 

Anglican  view  of,  554 

Romish  view  of,  556-558 

Doctrine  of  Soul,  Sleep,  or  Anni- 
hilation, 554,  555 

Refuted,  555 

No  second  probation,  555,  556 
DECREES  of  God,  200-213 

Difficulties  involved,  201 

Arminian  view  of,  202,  207 

Calvinistic  doctrine  of,  stated,  202, 
203 

One  purpose,  203 

Eternal,  203 

Doctrine  proved,  205,  206 

Sovereign,  206 

Unconditioned,  207,  208 


DECREES  {continued). 

How  far  efficacious  and  how  far 
permissive,  208 

Not  same  as  heathen  doctrine  of 
fate,  209 

Consistent    with    free    agency    of 
man,  209,  210 

With  the  holiness  of  God,  210,  21 1 

With  the  use  of  means,  212 

Practical  effects  of  this  doctrine, 
213 

Order  of  decrees,  230-234 
DEISM,  48 
DE  MOOR,  352 
DES  CARTES,  46,  63,  260,  270 
DEMONIA  CAL  POSSESSION.    (See 

Angels. ) 
DENS,  593,  625,  641 
DESCENT  into  Hell,  439 
DESIGN,  Argument  from.    (See  God. ) 
DICK,  Dr.  John,  372 
DOCTRINE  HISTORY,  23 
DOCTRINAL  STANDARDS. 

Of  Church  of  Rome,  119-121 

Of  Greek,  121,  122 

Of  Lutheran  Church,  122-124 

Of  Reformed  Churches,  124-128 
DOLLINGER,  52 
DOMINICANS,  99,  100 
DONA  NATURALIA  and  Supernat- 

uralia,  305,  306 
DORNER,  Dr.  J.  A.,  48,  358,  362,  517 
DUALISM,  47 
D  WIGHT,  423 

EBIONITES,  196,  386 
EBRARD,  Dr.  388 
ECCLESIOLOGY,  23,  107,  108 
EDWARDS,   Jonathan,  51,  260,  289, 
303,  320,  326,  341,  360,  458,  462 
EFFECTUAL  Calling.     (See  Calling.) 
EGLIN,  Raphael,  362 
EICHORN,  48,  57 

EMMONS,  Dr.,  270,  423,  457,  508,  521 
ENCYCLOPAEDIA,  15 
EPISCOPALIANS,  103 
EPISCOPIUS,  105,  531 
ERASTUS,  433 
ERASTIANISM,  433 
ERSKINE,  Ebenezer,  61,  417 
ERSKINE,  Ralph,  417 
ESCHATOLOGY,  23,  107,  548 
ETHICS,  Christian,  23 
ETHNOLOGY,  18 
EUCHARIST,  102 
EUSEBIUS  of  Cffisarea,  27,  197 
EUSEBIUS  of  Nicomedia,  197 
EUTYCHES,  386,  387 
EUTYCHIANISM,  387 
EVIDENCES  of  Christianity,  19 
EVOLUTION,  theories  of,  39.  40 


670 


INDEX. 


EXALTATION,     Estate     of.      (See 

Christ.) 
EXEGESIS,  21 
EXEGETICAL  THEOLOGY,  20 

FABER,  Stanley,  216 
FAIRBAIRN,  Dr.  Patrick,  250,  398, 

573,  578,  610 
K4ITH,  465-481 
Defined,  465,  466 
Faith  and  knowledge,  467-469 
Romish  distinction  of  "Implicit" 
and  "Explicit"  faith,  467,  468 
Grounds  of  faith,  470 
Temporary  and  living,  471 
How  related  to  trust,  472 
Doctrine  proved,  473 
"Fides  informis"and  "fides  for- 

mata,"  474 
Articles  of  faith  and   matters  of 

opinion,  475 
"  Fides  specialis  "  and  its  object,  476 
Relation  of  Faith  and  Assurance, 

477-479 
Faith  leads  to  works,  479 
Authoritative  Statements,  479^481 
Relation  to  Justification,  503,  504 
FARRAR,  A.  S.,  61 
FARRAR,  F.  W.,  48,  58,  61,  104 
FEDERAL  THEOLOGY,  362-366 
FEUERBACH,  51 
FICHTE,  57,  63 
FINNEY,  Prof.,  534 
FISHER,  Dr.  G.  P.,  62,  357,  361 
FLETCHER,  377 
FLA  TT,  423 

FLINT,  Prof.  Robert,  32,  38,  46,  47 
FORE  ORDINATION  how  far  distin- 
guished from  foreknowledge  and 
how  far  equivalent,  203 
FORMULA   CONCORDIA,  80,   100, 
123,  235,  301,  336,  337,  346,  354, 
389,  390,  424,  443,  448,  454,  464, 
513,  540,  546,  635,  648 
FORMULA      CONSENSUS     HEL- 
VETICA,   127,    128,    346,    356, 
425,  and  Appendix 
FRANCISCANS,  99 
FREDERICK  the  Great,  57 
FREE  AGENCY,  280-295 
Will  defined,  282 
Distinction    between   liberty   and 

ability,  288,  289 
Motives  defined,  290 
Consistent  with  certainty,  291 
False  theories  of  contingency,  291- 

293 
Arminian  View  inconsistent  with 
gospel,  294,  295 
FREE  WILL,  97 
FERGUSON  58 


GERHARD,  John,  166,  235,  241 
GESS,  Dr.  W.  F.,  388,  389 
GIBBON,  218 

GLADSTONE,  Hon.  Wm.  E.,  433 
GOD,  His  existence,  29-52 

Origin  of  idea  of,  29 

Nominal  definition  of,  29 

Real  definition,  29,  30 

Idea,  how  far  due  to  tradition  T 
30 

In  what  sense  innate  ?  and  in  what 
sense  intuitive,  30,  31 

Formal  arguments  for  existence  of, 
their  value  and  classification,  32 

Cosmological  Argument,  33 

Objections  to  and  answer,  33,  34 

Teleological  Argument,  in  two 
forms,  35,  36 

Objections  to  and  answers,  37-40 

Moral  Argument  stated,  41 

Objections  and  answers,  42,  43 

Scriptural  Argument,  44,  45 

A  priori  Argument,  45,  46 

Anti-Theistic  theories,  46-52 
GOD,  his  Attributes,  107,  109,  129-163 

Method  of  determining  them,  129 

Objective  reality  of  our  knowledge 
of,  129-131 

Names  of,  their  etymology  and 
meaning,  134,  135 

The  nature  of  these  attributes,  135, 
136,  and  their  classification,  137, 
138 

His  Simplicity,  136 

Unity,  138,  168,  169 

Spirituality,  139,  140 

Relation  to  space,  140,  141 

Relation  to  time,  142,  143 

Immutability,  143,  144 

Infinite  Intelligence,  144-148 

Wisdom,  148,  149 

Infinite  power,  149,  150 

Will,  150,  153 

Absolute  Justice,  153-158 

Goodness,  158-161 

Truth,  161,  162 

Sovereignty,  162 

Holiness,  163 
GOD,  Decrees  of.     (See  Decrees.) 
GOD,  his  acts  classified,  200 

Not  the  author  of  sin,  211,  212 
G  OMAR  US,  232,  349 

Governmental    theory    of   Atone- 
ment,  422 
GNOSTICS,  47,  196 
GRACE,  97 

GREEK  Church,  Doctrine  of,  as  to 
sin,  334,  335 

As  to  Grace,  454 

As  to  Intermediate  State,  558 

As  to  Mode  of  Baptism,  615 


INDEX. 


671 


GREEN,  Dr.  Wm.  H.,  297 
GREGORY,  the  Great,  423 
GROTIUS,  105,  156,  413,  423 

HAGENBACH,  58,  164,  197,  198,  387, 

388,  590 
HALES  297 
HAMILTON,  Sir  Wm.,  49,  130,  133, 

282,  292,  305, 
HARE,  Julius  C,  405 
HARD  WICK,  47 
HARVEY,  Keview  of  N.  W.  Taylor, 

332 
HASE,  423,  448 
HAVEN,  Prof.,  319 
HE  A  VEN  and  Hell,  577-587 

Heaven,  577-580 

Scriptural  Terms,  577,  578 

A  place,  578 

A  condition,  578,  580 

The  State  of  the  Reprobate,  580- 
587 

Scriptural  Terms,  580 

The  nature  of  future  punishment, 
580,  581 

It  is  endless,  581-583 

Objections  stated  and  refuted,  584- 
587 

Theory  of  Annihilation   or   Con- 
ditional Immortality,  583 

Theory  of  Eestoration,  583,  584 
HEGEL,  51,  57,  63 
HEIDEGGER,  J.  H,  127 
HELL.     (See  Heaven  and  Hell.) 
HERBERT  of  Cherbury,  48 
HERMENEUTICS,  21 
HERMES,  569 
HERSCHELL,  Sir  John,  241 
HETHERINGTON,  61 
HILARY,  94 

HILDEBERT  of  Tours,  637 
HILL,  170,  185 

HISTORICAL  THEOLOGY,  26,  27 
HISTORY,  Biblical,  26 

Ecclesiastical,  26 

Sources  of,  27 

Of  Doctrine,  28 
HOBBES,  48 

HODGE,  Dr.   Charles,  137,  159,  181, 
230,  262,  272,  317,  344,  377,  420, 
441,  442,  446,  459,  468,  469,  560, 
567,  587 
HOFFMAN,  Dr.,  388 
HOGG,  James,  417 

HOLY  GHOST,  His  divinity  and  per- 
sonality, 173-176 
HOPKINS,  Dr.,  61,  351,  353 
HORNE'S  Introduction,  177 
HUDSON,  C.  F.,  313,  554,  583 
HUMANITARIANS,  195 
HUME,  David,  37 


HUMILIATION,     Estate     of.      (See 

Christ. ) 
HURST,  48,  57,  58 
HUTTER,  363 
HUXLEY,  40 
HYPERIUS,  362 

IDEALISM,  48,  49 
INDULGENCES,  493 
IMMORTALITY  of  the  soul,  549-552 
IMPUTATION  of  Adam's  first  sin, 
348-366 

Imputation  denned,  357,  358 

Mediate,  358 

Of  our  sins  to  Christ,  407,  408 

Of  Christ's   righteousness  to   us, 
501,  502 
INABILITY,  338-347 

Pelagian  view  of,  338 

Semipelagian,  338 

Augustinian,  339 

Distinction     of    "Liberty"    and 
"Ability,"   339 

Doctrine  stated,  339,  340 

Distinction  of  "Moral"  and  "Nat- 
ural "  Ability,  341,  342 

Doctrine  proved,  340-343 

Objections  stated   and   answered, 
343-345 

Authoritative  Church  Statements, 
346,  347 
INDEPENDENT  CHURCHES,  103 
INFINITE,  The,  130,  133 
INFRA-LAPSARIANISM,  231 
INNOCENT  in.,  637 
INNER  LIGHT,  55 
INSPIRA  TION,  21,  65,  81 

Necessary  presuppositions,  65 

Church  doctrine  of,  66 

Plenary  what?  66 

Verbal  what  ?  66 

Doctrine  proved,  67 

God's  Providential  agency  therein, 
67 

Nature  and  extent  of  Inspiration 
defined,  68 

How  differs  from  revelation?  68 

From  spiritual  illumination,  68 

Proof  of  Church  doctrine  of,  69-74 

Objections  stated  and   answered, 
74-77 

Defective  statements  of,  78 

False  doctrines  of,  78,  79 

Authoritative  Creed  statements  of, 
80,  81 
INTERCESSION  of  Christ,  626,  427 
INTERPRETATION,  History  of,  2J 

Prophetical,  22 
INTRODUCTION,  general,  20 

Special,  21 
IRENsEUS,  421,  569,  623 


672 


INDEX. 


JACOB T,  51 
JAMBLICUS,  51 
JANSENIUS,  99 
JANSENISTS,  100,  449 
JESUITS,  99,  271 

yit  fVS,  future  Conversion  and  Restora- 
tion of,  571-573 
JOHN  Ascuanages,  197 
JOHN  Philoponus,  197 
JOSEPHUS,  297 
JOWETT,  Prof.,  58,  422 
JULIAN,  96 

JUDGMENT,  final,  573-576 
JUSTIFICA  TION,  496-514 

New  Testament  usage  of  Stxaiooo, 

etc.,  496,  497 
Doctrine  defined  and  proved,  498- 

502 
Not  grounded  on  works,  498,  499 
But  upon  the  righteousness,  active 

and  passive,  of  Christ,  500 
Imputation  of  righteousnessproved 

501,  502 
Relation  of  Faith  to,  503,  504 
Specific  object  of  justifying  faith, 

504 
Its  effects,  505 
Objections  stated  and   answered, 

505 
Erroneous  views  of,  505-512 
Piscator's  view,  506 
As  modified  by  Governmental  the- 
ory of  the  Atonement,  508,  and 
by  the  Arminian  theory,  508,  509 
Calvin  vindicated,  507,  508 
Romish   doctrine   of  Justification 

stated  and  refuted,  509-512 
Authoritative  Church  statements, 
513,  514 

KAHNIS,  58 

KANT,  63 

KINGSHIP  of  Christ     (See  Christ.) 

AYTTO,  249,  578,  580 

KNOX,  John,  640 

KRAUTH,  Dr.,   C.   P.,  49,  123,  362, 

595,  626,  629,  634,  643 
KURTZ,  27 

LAMPE,  352 

LEA  THES,  Stanley,  61 

LE  CLERC,  105 

LEIBNITZ,  63,  244 

LEIPSIC  Conference,  448 

LELAND,  48 

LEO  the  Great,  388 

LESSING,  48 

LIMBORCH,  105,  307,  337,  347,  353, 

413,  425,  447,  503,  509,  514,  587, 

602 
LOCKE,  John,  63 


LORD'S  SUPPER,  631-650 

Its  institution  and  perpetual  obli* 
gation,  631 

Scriptural  and  Ecclesiastical  desig- 
nations, 631,  632 

Kind  of  bread  and  wine  to  be  used, 
633,  634 

The  breaking  of  bread,  634 

Distribution  of  elements  essential, 
635,  636 

Proper  manner  of  conducting  ser- 
vices, 636 

Relation  of  the  sign  to  the  grace 
signified,  636-641 

Romish  view  of  (Transubstantia- 
tion)  stated  and  refuted,  636,  639 

Doctrine  of  "Concomitance,"  637 

Reasons  for  withholding  the  cup, 
637 

Lutheran  view  of  the  presence  of 
Christ  in,  639 

The  Reformed  view  of  same,  639- 
641 

Efficacy  of,  641-647 

Romish  Doctrine  of  same  as  a  Sac- 
rament and  as  a  Sacrifice  (Mass) 
stated  and  refuted,  641,  642 

Lutheran  view  of  same,  642,  643 

Zwinglian  view  of,  643 

Reformed  view  of,  643 

Qualification  for  admission  to,  644- 
646 

Authoritative  Statements,  646-650 
LOYOLA  Ignatius,  99 
LUTHER,  100,  102,  354,  384,  404,  405, 

444,  625,  626,  639 
LUTHERAN  Churches,  102 
L  UTHERANISM,  100-102, 122, 123,271 

Of  Original  Sin,  336,  337 

Of  Predestination,  234,  235 

Of  Original  Righteousness,  307 

Of  Inability,  346 

Of  Person  of  Christ,  384,  389,  390 

Of  the  "Descent  into  Hell,"  439, 
443,  444 

Of  Effectual  Calling,  447 

Of  Regeneration,  464 

Of  Justification,  513 

Of  Perseverance,  546 

Of  Efficacy  of  Sacraments,  595,  600, 
601 

Of  Neoessity  of  Baptism,  625,  629 

Of  Christ's  presence  in  the  Eucha- 
rist, 639,  648,  649 

Of  Efficacy  of  same,  64,  643,  648, 
649 

M'CLINTOCK,  Dr.  John,  26,  27,  28, 

494 
JII'COSH,  Dr.  James,  142,  283,  286,  315 
MACEDONIUS,  171 


INDEX. 


673 


MA  HAN,  Prof.,  534 
MALEBRANCHE,  260 
MAN,  his  CREATION,  and   ORIG- 
INAL STA  TE,  296-308 

Immediately  created  by  God,  296 

His  antiquity,  297,  298 

Unity  of  race  proved,  298,  299 

Trichotomy  disproved,  299,  300 

Created  righteous,  300,  301 

Pelagian  view  of  original   right- 
eousness, 302,  304 

Arminian,  302 

Responsibility  for  innate  disposi- 
tions, 302-305 

Distinction  between  the  image  and 
likeness  of  God,  305 

Eomish  doctrine   of  the  original 
state  of  man,  305,  306 

Authoritative  Statements,  306-308 
MANES,  47,  350 
MANNING,  Cardinal,  93,  432 
MANSEL,  130,  133 
MARBURG,  Colloquy,  640 
MARROW  men,  417 
MARTENSEN,  388 
MA  R  TINE  A  U,  James,  104 
MARTYR,  Justin,  623 
MARTYR,  Peter,  355 
MASON,  Dr.  John  M.,  621 
MASS,  doctrine  of,  632,  641,  647,  648 
MA  TERIALISM,    modern,     involves 
old  doctrine  of  Chance,  41,  49, 
50,  52 
MA  TTER  not  eternal,  241,  242 
MAURICE,  58,  442,  448 
MAX  MULLER,  48 
MEDIATION  THEOLOGY,  57 
MEDIATORIAL     Office    of    Christ. 

(See  Christ.) 
MELANCHTHON,  100,  354,  362,  448, 

639,  640 
MERIT,  Romish  doctrine  of,  merit  of 
congruity  and  of  condignity,  527 

True  view  of,  527,  528 
METHODISTS,   Wesleyan,    103,    105 

Articles  of  religion  of,  126 
METHODOLOGY,  15 
MILL,  James,  43 
MILL,  J.  S.,  33,  34,  43,  47,  276 
MILLER,  Hugh,  331,  364 
MILLENNIUM,    Scriptural    doctrine 

of,  568,  569 
MIRACLES,  274-279 

Possible,  275,  276 

How  consistent  with  divine  per- 
fections, 277,  278 

How  recognizable,  27$,  279 
MOEHLER,  306 
MOLINA,  Lewis,  99,  147 
MOLINISTS,  99,  100 
MONARCHIANS,  174,  197,  198 


MONOPIIYSITES,  387 

MONO  THELITES,  388 

MORAL  Argument.     (See  God. ) 

MORAL  accountability,  ultimate  seat 
of,  293,  294 

MORAL  Influence  Theory  of  Atone- 
ment, 422 

MOORE,  Dr.  Wm.  E.,  436,  598,  625, 
636 

MOSHEIM,  164,  506 

MULLER,  Julius,  351 

MYCONIUS,  Oswald,  640 

MYSTICAL  theory  of  Atonement,  422 

NATURAL  THEOLOGY,  19 
NEANDER,   Augustus,    27,   47,    174, 

197,  305,  387,  421,  615 
NEO-PLATONISTS,  51,  63 
NESTORIUS,  387 
NESTORIAN,  Heresy,  387 
NEWMAN,  J.  H,  625 
NEWTON,  Sir  Isaac,  142 
NICENE  Creed.     (See  Oreed.) 
NICOLE,  100 

NIEMEYER,  Dr.  H.  A.,  128 
NOETUS,  198 
NEW  HAVEN  doctrine  of  Original 

Sin,  335 

[5m 

OBERLIN doctrine  of  Perfection,  533- 
OCHINO,  104 
OLE  VI ANUS,  362 
ONDERDONK,  Bishop  H.  U.,  457 
ORIGEN,  197,  198,  421,  423,  555,  623 
OSIANDER,  422 
OUTRAM,  409,  421 
OWEN,  Dr.  J.,  362 

PAINE,  Thos.,  48 

PALEY,  61 

PANTHEISM,  50 

PAPIAS,  569 

PAREUS,  D.,  351 

PARR-,  Prof.  Ed.  A.,  154,  423 

PARKER,  Theodore,  48,  58 

PARSONS,  Dr.  Theophilus,  565 

PASCAL,  51,  100 

PATRIPASSIANS,  174 

PA  UL  of  Samosata,  103 

PAUL,  Father,  357 

PAUL  US,  48,  57 

PEARSON,  Bishop,  61,  439 

PECK,  Dr.  George,  531,  532,  533,  534, 

535,  537 
PELAGIUS,  96,  623 
PELAGIANISM  compared  with  Au- 

gustinianism,  96,  97 
Doctrine  of  Original  righteousness^ 

302,  304 
Of  sin,  320 
Of  original  sin,  330,  331,  334 


674 


INDEX. 


PELAGTANISM,  Doc.  {continued.) 

Of  inability,  338 

Of  effectual  calling,  447 

Of  regeneration,  456 

Of  perfection,  529 
PENANCE.     (See  Repentance.) 
PERFECTIONISM,  21.     (See  Sancti- 

fication. ) 
PERA'INS,  Dr.  Justin,  634 
*>ERSE  VERANCE  of  the  Saints,  542- 
547 

Doctrine  stated  and  proved,  542, 
543 

Objections  stated  and   answered, 
543-547 

Romish  view  of,  543,  546 

Arminian,  543 

Lutheran,  546 

Authoritative  Statements,  546,  547, 
PHILOLOGY,  Biblical,  20 
PHILOSOPHY,  18 

Its  relation  to  Theology,  63 
PIGHIUS,  Albertus,  357 
PISCATOR,  415,  506 
PIUS  IX.,  Pope,  432 
PLAC&US,  Joshua,  358,  359 
PLOTINUS,  51 
POLEMICS,  23 
POLYTHEISM,  47 
POPE  Innocent,  96 

Zosimus,  96 

Innocent  X.,  100 

Alexander  n.,  100 

Clement  XI.,  100 

Leo  X.,  495 
POPE,  Infallibility  and  Authority  of, 

92  93 
PORPHYRY,  51 
PRACTICAL  THEOLOGY,  24 
PR  AXE  AS,  198 
PREDESTINATION,  98,  214-336 

Different  senses  of  word,  214 

Theory   of   "National   Election," 
215 

Theory  of  "Ecclesiastical  Individ- 
ualism," 216 

Arminian  doctrine  of,  216 

Calvinistic  doctrine  of,  218 

Not  founded  on  works,  220,  but  on 
the  sovereign  will  of  God,  220 

Doctrine  proved,  218-223 

Objections  stated  and   answered, 
223-229 
PREMILLENNIAL  Advent  Theory, 

569-571 
PRESBYTERIAN  Churches,  103,  104 
PRESSENSE,  Dr.  Edward,  47,  103 
PRIESTLEY,  104 
PRIVA  TE  JUDGMENT,  91 
PROFESSIO       FIDEI       TRIDEN- 
TIN^E,   92 


PROVIDENCE,  258-279 

Preservation,  258 

Deistical  View,  259 

Theory  of  continued  creation,  260, 
261 

True  doctrine  of  preservation  sta- 
ted, 261 

Scripture  doctrine  of  Providential 
Government  stated,  262,  and 
proved,  263-266 

Special  providence,  266 

Extends  to  free  and  to  sinful  acts, 
267,  268 

Mechanical  theory  of,  269,  270 

Theory  of  occasional  causes,  270, 
271 

Theories  of  concursus,  271-273 

Characteristics  set  forth  in  Script- 
ure, 273,  274 

Extraordinary  providences  and  mir- 
acles, 274-279 
PSYCHOLOGY,  18 
PUNISHMENT,     Future,     Endless, 

580-587 
PURGA  TOR  Y,  556-558 
PUSEY,  Dr.,  503 

QUENSTEDT,  Andrew,  239,  355,  360, 

629 
QUESNEL,  100,  449 

RAD  BERT,  Pascasius,  637 

RATIONALISM,  55,  57 

RATIONALISTS,  174 

RA  TRAMNUS,  637 

RA  WLINSON,  61 

REALISM,  361-364 

REASON,  different  senses  of,  56 

Not  ultimate  ground  of  religious 
truth,  58,  59 
REDEMPTION,  98 
REFORMED  Churches,  102,  103 
REFORMED  doctrine,   103,  271,  272 

Of  Person  of  Christ,  390,  etc.,  etc. 
RE  GENERA  TION,  456-464 

Erroneous  Views,  456-458 

True  view  stated  and  proved,  458- 
461 

Distinguished  from  Conversion, 
460 

Absolute  necessity  of,  463 

Authoritative  Statements,  464,  494, 
495 
REID,  63,  292 
REIMARUS,  48,  57 
RELIGION,  what?  15 
REMONSTRANCE,  105 
REMONSTRANTS,  105,  271 
REMONSTRANT  Doctrine  of  Pre- 
destination, 236 

Of  original  righteousness,  307 


INDEX. 


675 


REMONSTRANT  Doc.  (emtittued.) 
Of  original  sin,  337 
Of  Inability,  347 
Confession  of,  353 
Of  Atonement,  425 
Of  Efficacy  of  Sacraments,  595,  596, 
602 
RENAN,  58 

kEPENTANCE     AND     ROMISH 
DOCTRINE    OF  PENANCE, 
487-495 
A  gift  of  God,  487 
Its  fruits,  488 
Includes  apprehension  of  God  in 

Christ,  488 
Its  evidences,  489 
Romish  doctrine  of  Penance,  490 
Statement,  490 
Of  Confession,  491 
Of  Absolution,  492 
Refutation    of   Romish    doctrine, 

492,  493 
Doctrine  of  Indulgences,  493 
Authoritative  statements,  494,  495 
RESURRECTION   of    Christ.     (See 

Christ  ) 
RESURRECTION,  559-565 

Simultaneous  and  general,  560,  565 
Christ's  resurrection,  560,  561 
Scientific  objections  stated  and  an- 
swered, 561,  563 
Conditions  of  Personal   Identity, 

563 
Doctrine  of  the  Jews,  564 
Heretical  views,  564,  565 
REVELATION  supernatural,   neces- 
sary, possible,  and  probable,  59- 
61 
Its  nature,  68 
RIDGE LY,  Dr.  T.,  352 
RITSCIIL,  423 
RITTER,  52 

ROBERTSON,  Rev.  Andrew,  418 
ROBINSON,  Dr.  Ed.,  408,  445,  465, 

554 
RODGERS,  Judge,  Supreme  Court  of 

Penna.,  435 
ROGERS,  Henry,  61 
ROMAN  CATHOLIC  Doctrine.     Of 
authority  and  infallibility  of  the 
Pope,  92,  93 
Of  sin,  321 

Original. sin,  335,  336,  337 
Of  inability,  346 
Of  Christian  priesthood,  399 
Of  Christ's   "descent  into  hell," 

439,  443 
Of  grace,  454 
Of  regeneration,  490-495 
Of  faith,  472,  474,  476 
Of  justification,  491,  499,  509 


ROMAN  CA  TIIOLIC  Doc.  (lontinued. ) 

Of  counsels,  525,  540 

Of  merit  of  condignity  and  of  con- 
gruity,  527 

Of  perfection,  530-536 

Of  perseverance,  543,  546 

Of  purgatory,  and  the  intermediate 
state,  556-558 

Of  sacraments,  590-600 

Their  efficacy,  596,  597 

Of  efficacy,  and  necessity  of  bap- 
tism, 625-630 

Of  transubstantiation,  634-639,  646 - 
648 

Doctrine  of  the  Mass,  641,  646-648 
ROW,  61 

RULE  OF  FAITH  and  PRACTICE, 
82-93 

Protestant  Doctrine  of,  55,  82 

Roman  Catholic  Doctrine  of,  82,  83 

SABELLIUS,  198 
SACRAMENTS,  588-602 

Etymology  and  usage  of  the  word, 
588,  589 

Definition  of,  589,  590 

Relation  of  sign  to  grace  signified, 
591,  592 

Romish   Doctrine  of  Efficacy  of, 
592-595 

Protestant  Doctrine  of  same,  595 
597 

Necessity  of,  597,  598 

Validity  of,  598,  599 

Authentic    Statements,     599  -  602. 
(See  Baptism  and   Lord's  Sup- 
per.) 
SAISSET,  52 
SAMPSON,  165 
S A  NOTIFICATION,  520-541 

Different  views  of,  520,  521 

Doctrine  defined,  521,  522 

Agency  of  the  truth  in,  523 

Agency  of  the  sacraments  in,  524 

And  of  Faith,  524 

Good  works,  their  nature  and  ne- 
cessity, 525,  526 

Romish  Doctrine  of  Precepts  and 
Counsels,  525 

Antinomian  view  of,  526 

Merit  of  condignity,  and  merit  of 
congruity,  527 

True  view  of  merit,  527,  528 

Perfect  sanctification,  529-541 

Pelagian  theory  of,  stated,  529,  and 
refuted,  534-539 

Romish  theory  of,  stated,  530,  531, 
and  refuted,  534-539 

Arminian  theory  of,  stated,  531-533, 
and  refuted,  534-539 

Authoritative  Statements,  539-541 


676 


INDEX. 


SANDEMANIANS,  472 
SATAN.     (See  Angels.) 
SA  VO  Y  DECLARA  TION,  126 
SCHAFF,  Dr.  Philip,  27,  58,  112,  115, 
117,  124,  128,  361,  364,  423,  615, 
634 
SCHELLING,  51,  57,  63 
SCHLEIERMACHEK,  51,  54,  422 
SCHOOLMEN,  theology  of,  99 
SCHWENKFELD,  422 
SCIENCE  and  Kevelation,  246-248 
SCIENCES,  physical,  19 
*'SCIENTIA  MEDIA,"  99,  147 
SCOTUS,  Erigena,  51,  422 
SCOTUS,  John  Duns,  99,  412 
SCRIPTURES,  Inspiration  of,  65-81 
Only  infallible  rule   of  faith  and 

practice,  84 
Complete,  84,  85 
Perspicuous,  85,  86 
Accessible,  86 

Judge  of  Controversy,  86,  89-91 
Do  not  derive  authority  from  the 

Church,  90 
Nor   to   be   authoritatively   inter- 
preted by  the  Church,  90 
Romish  Doctrine  of  the  Interpre- 
tation of,  92 
SECOND    ADVENT    AND    GEN- 
ERAL  JUDGMENT,  566-576 
New  Testament  usage  of  the  words, 

566 
A  literal  Advent  still  future,  566, 

567 
Various  interpretations  of  Matthew 

xxiv.  and  xxv. ,  567 
The  Apostles  did  not  teach  that  the 
coming  would  be  immediate,  568 
Millennium,    Scriptural    Doctrine 

of,  568,  569 
The   Premillennial   theory   stated 

and  refuted,  569,  570 
The  interpretation  of  Revelation 

xx.  1-10,  570,  571 
The  future  Conversion  and  Resto- 
ration of  the  Jews,  571,  572 
The  final  judgment,  573-576 
The  Judge  and  the  subjects  of  judg- 
ment, 573 
How   the    Saints   will  judge    the 

world,  574 
The  Principles  of  the  Judgment, 

574 
The    final    Conflagration    of    the 

world,   575 
Authoritative  Statements,  576 
SEMIARIANS,  167,  197 
SEMIPELAGIANISM,  96,  98,  99, 
334 
Doctrine  of  Inability,  338 
Of  Effectual  Calling,  447 


SEMLER,  57 

SER  FETUS,  104 

SHAFTESBURY,  48 

SHEDD,  Rev.  J.  H.,  634 

SHEDD,  Dr.  Win.  G.  T.,  116, 196,  198, 

362,  364,  365,  423 
SIN,  Its  nature,  315-321 
Its  tests,  315 
Its  definition,  315 
"Want  of  conformity  to  law)  316,  317 
Predicable  of  permanent  states  aa 

well  as  of  acts,  318,  319 
Concupiscence  sinful,  319 
The  Origin  of  sin,  317-322 
Pelagian  Doctrine  of,  320 
In  what  sense  always  voluntary,  320 
SIN  of  Adam,  321-324 

Its  effect  on  himself,  323 
Upon  his  posterity,  324 
SIN,  original,  97,  325-337 
Doctrine  of,  defined,  325 
It  does  not  involve  corruption  ol 

substance,  326 
It  is  truly  sin,  327 
Not  simply  loss  of  original  right- 
eousness, 327 
It  affects  the  entire  man,  327,  328 
In  what  sense  "total"  ?  328,  329 
Doctrine  proved,  329,  333 
Sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  333 
Pelagian  and   Semipelagian   Doc-' 

trine  of,  333,  334 
New  Haven  Doctrine  of,  335 
Authoritative   Church   Statements 
of,  336,  337 
SIN,  The  IMPUTATION  of  Adam's 
first,  348-366 
The   difficulty  lies  in  the  Facts, 

348,  349 
Self-evident   principles  to  be   re- 
membered, 349 
Two  questions  to  be  kept  distinct, 

the  How  ?  and  the  Why  ?  350 
Theories  of  the  origination  which 
ignore  its  Adamic  origin,  350,  351 
Different  views  as  to  the  propaga- 
tion of  sin,  351,  352 
The  Anninian  explanation  of  the 
justice   of  ante-natal  forfeiture, 
352 
The  New  England  view  of  same, 

353 
The  Church  view  of  same,  353 
The    general    consensus    of    the 

Churches  shown,   354^357 
Imputation  defined,  357,  358 
Mediate  Imputation,  358-360 
The  Church  Doctrine  proved,  360 
Ground  of  the  imputation,  361-366 
The  Augustinian  view,  361-364 
The  Federal  view,  362-366 


INDEX. 


677 


SMALLEY,  423 
SMITH,  T     Henry  B.,  403 
SMITH,  i'r.  Robertson,  58 
SOCINUS,  Faustus,  104,  174,  334,  414, 

415 
SOCINIANS,  96,  103,  194,  271,  386 
SOCINIANISM,  96,  106,  107,  202,  206, 
334,  347 

Doctrine    of    the    Priesthood    of 
Christ,  400 

Of  the  Atonement,  414,  415,  422 

Of  Justifying  Faith,  503,  504 

Of  Justification,  514 

Of  the  Efficacy  of  Baptism,   etc., 
630 
SOTERICLOGY,    23,    96,    106,    108, 

110 
SPENCER,  Herbert,  47 
SPINOZA,  51,  260,  270 
STANLEY,  Dean  Edward,  58 
STATISTICS,  19 
S     1 UDLIN,  423 
S.EWART,  Prof.  B.,  34 
CTORR,  423 
STRAUSS,  47,  51,  58 
STREITWOLF,  423 
STRONG,  Justice  Win.,  436 
STUART,  Dr.  Moses,  581 
SUMNER,  Archbishop,  216 
SUPRALAPSARIANS,  232,  233,  411 
SIVEDENBORG,  564,  565 
rYLLABUS,  Papal,  432 
SYMBOLICS,  28 
SYNERGISTS,  100 
SYNERGISM,  448 
SYNOD  oi  Dort,  105,  417 

Canons  and  Decrees  of,  113,  126, 
235,  346,  352,  356,  454,  546 
SYNOD  of  Orange,  98 
SYNOD  of  Valence,  98 
SYSTEMATIC  Theology,  22 

TA  YLOR,  Isaac,  248,  555 

TAYLOR,  Dr.   N.   W.,   160,  332,  457, 

458,  459,  521 
TELEOLOGICAL    Argument.      (See 

God.) 
TENNEMANN,  47 
TERTULLIAN,  94,  164.  569,  623 
THEODICE,  243 
THEODORE  of  Mopsuostia,  387 
T1IEODOTUS,  103 
THEOLOGY,  What?  lr» 

Three  systems  of,  have  always  pre- 
vailed, 95,  96 
How  far  possible?  16 
Why  desirable?  16 
Upon  what  fundamental  questions 

does  it  rest?  17 
Its  position   in   relation   to   other 
sciences,  17 


THEOLOG  Y  (continued. ) 

The  main  divisions  in  the  proposed 

arrangement  stated,  17 
Departments  of  human  knowledge 
auxiliary  to  the  study  of  theol- 
ogy, 18,  19 
THEOLOGY,  Natural,  19.  53 
Revealed,  53 
Exegetical,  20 
Biblical,  22 
Systematic,  22 
Practical,  24 
Historical,  26,  27 
THEOLOGY,  Sources  of,  53,  54,  exc 
Reason  not  the  ultimate  sourco  of, 

58,  59 
Relation  of,  to  Philosophy,  63 
THEOLOGY  PROPER,  101,  106 
THOLUCK,  Prof.,  26 
THOMASIUS,  Dr.  Gottfried,  388 
THORNWELL,  Dr.  James,  357 
TILLEMONT,  100 
TISCHENDORF,  62 
TITCOMB,  61 

TRADITION  Romish  doctrine  stated, 
82,    83,    92,   and  disproved,   83, 
84 
TRADUCIANISM,  351,  352 
TRANSUBSTANTIATION,  Romish 

doctrine  of,  635-639,  646-648 
TRICHOTOMY,  299,  300 
TRINITY,  doctrine  of,  164-199 
Meaning  of  word,  164 
Definition  of  terms,  164-167 
The  several  propositions  involved, 

167.  168 
The  divinity  and  separate  person- 
ality of  the  Logos,  169-173 
The  divinity  and  personality  of  the 

Holy  Ghost,  173-176 
Doctrine  directly  taught  in  Script- 
ure, 176-178 
The  Eternal  Generation  of  the  Son, 

178-188 
The  Eternal  Procession  of  the  Holy 

Ghost,  188-192 
Heretical  Opinions,  195-199 
Doctrine  essential  to  Christianity, 
198,  199 
TUBINGEN,  58 
TULLOCH,  47,  58 

TURRETIN,  Francis,  127,  137,  145. 
152,  164,  173,  182,  190,  25£ 
268,  272,  289,  315,  366,  369,  -.'.cn 
377,  402,  451,  460,  481,  497,  504, 
515.    516,    527,    528,    592,    603 
632 
TY/.ER,  Prof.,  48 
TYNDAL,  50 
TYPOLOGY^  91 
TWISSE,  349,  411 


678 


INDEX. 


ULRICA  47 

UNDERDONK,  Bishop  H.  U.,  457 
UNION  with  Christ.     (See  Christ.) 
UNITARIAN  Churches,  104 
UNITARIANS,  103,  174,  198 
UNIVERSAL  History,  18 
UPDEGRAFF,  case  of,  435 
URSINUS,  354,  380,  640 
USSHER,  Archbishop  James,  297,  417 
UTILITARIAN  THEORY  OF  MOR- 
ALS, 287 

VALENSES,  424 
VAN  MILDER  T,  William,  48 
VICTOR,  St.  Hugo,  587 
VIRCHOW,  40 
VIRTUE,  286 

VIRTUOUS  CHARACTER,  286,  287 
The  ultimate  seat  of  moral  respon- 
sibility, 293,  295 
VITRINGA,  316 
VOLTAIRE,  48 
VON  B RES,  640 
VOSSIUS,  G.  J.,  356 

WACE,  61 

WALL,  Dr.  William,  623 

WALNUT   STREET  Church    case, 

439 
WARDLA  W,  61 
WA  TSON,  Eichard,  106,  303,  304,  377, 

417,  418,  423,  538 


WEEKS,  Dr.  W.  B.,  403 
WEGSCHEIDER,  48,  57,  218 
WESLEY,    106,    224,   303,    321,    532, 

533 
WESLEYANS,  106 
WESSEL,  John,  424 
WESTCOTT,  Rev.  B.  P.,  61 
WET  STEIN,  105 
WHATELY,    Archbishop,    216,    227 

554,  583 
WHEDON,  Dr.  D.  D.,  224,  293,  294, 

302,  353 
WHITE,  Rev.  Ed.,  583 
WIGGERS,  Dr.  G.  F.,  97,  334,  354, 

529 
WILLIAMS,  58 
WISSOWATIUS,  104 
WITHERSPOON,  President,  356 
WITSIUS,  314,  356,  377 
WOLF,  57 
WOLFENB  UTTEL  FRA  G ME  NTS, 

57 
WOOLSEY,  President  Theodore,  157, 

158 
WYCLIFFE,  424 
YOUNG,  Dr.  John,  422 
ZOROASTER,  47 
ZWINGLE,  100,  639,  640 
ZWINGLIAN  Doctrine  of  the  Sacra- 
ments, 592,  595,  596 
Of  Baptism,  its  Efficacy,  626 
Of  Lord's  Supper,  its  Efficacy,  643 


Date  Due 

FACULTY 

- 

» 

( 

FAWtofa 

V* 

PAftUtf# 

lOiSafaft* 

J/flfakL- 

J%i 

"  '  ^% 

"lllti!     1     r 

^7*3^f 

<a*tf 

JAN 

f) 

5 


